it's called "natural selection" for a reason

evolutionary biologist jerry coyne @ whyevolutionistrue:

one reader wanted to know if i was going ask [dr. eugenie scott, former head of the national center for science education (NCSE) and known as "genie" to everyone] about theistic evolution — the view that evolution happened, but was somehow guided by god. they wanted to know if she considered that "real" evolution.

i responded on this site that i hardly wanted to get into a kerfuffle about the issue with genie in public. after all, i know her position on it (theistic evolution is okay), she knows mine, and i didn't want to do battle in public, particularly when she was giving a keynote talk.

but this website is a different matter.

in fact, the question of theistic evolution did come up in genie's Q&A, when one of the audience asked genie whether she considered theistic evolution "science."

the question clearly discomfited her a bit, but i knew how she would answer. she said, correctly, that there are a huge variety of positions falling under "theistic evolution," ranging from pure deism (god created the universe, and then evolution proceeded purely naturalistically) to other forms in which god intervened to a greater or lesser extent. as we know, those interventions range from subtle ones (god tweaked certain mutations making it more likely that they would be more likely to be adaptive, or more likely to create human features), to less subtle (god inserted a soul in the human lineage) to pretty drastic interventions (god let some species evolve naturally, but brought others into existence ex nihilo).

theistic evolution is in fact the most widely accepted form of evolution in america, at least for the evolution of our species. a gallup poll in 2012 showed that 46% of americans thought god created humans ex nihilo within the last 10,000 years, 32% thought that humans evolved, but with the help of god, and only 15% thought that humans evolved without any intervention by god. in other words, roughly one in seven american accepts evolution in the same way scientists do. for every american who accepts naturalistic evolution, more than two accept god-guided evolution. (i think accepting that "god guided the process" rules out pure deism.)

genie said something like this (i didn't write down her words), "what we care about is getting the science accepted, and yes, all of these positions are compatible with science, so i have no problem considering them as science." in other words, she'd be okay if she or the NCSE could simply make religious people accept theistic evolution. for, in her view, they'd be accepting a scientific view rather than a religious one. and then they might be our allies in keeping straight creationism out of public schools.

and here i think genie is wrong — dead wrong.

theistic evolution is neither science nor scientific. while it may help some religious people oppose the teaching of strict creationism in schools (the real goal of the NCSE's accommodationism), it inculcates people with the idea that god and his supernatural acts can work hand-in-hand with physical laws to bring about a process that scientists think is purely naturalistic.

further, we have evidence against certain types of theistic evolution. there doesn't appear to be any telelogical forces driving evolution in a certain direction; there is no evidence that mutations are more likely to be useful when the environment changes, so that mutations for longer fur in mammals would occur more frequently when the climate becomes colder (this is what scientists mean when we say that "mutations are random", although "indifferent" is a better word than "random"); and we don't see violations of darwinian natural selection, that is, we don't see natural selection creating "irreducible complexity," as intelligent-design advocates maintain.

as far as we can see, then, evolution, like all things that occur in nature, is purely naturalistic; it does not require or give evidence for the intervention of a god. as laplace famously said, "we don't need that hypothesis." theistic evolution says otherwise. and that's unscientific. there is, after all, a reason that darwin called his best idea natural selection, not "divinely-aided selection."

think about it. saying that theistic evolution is scientific is equivalent to saying that yes, chemical bonds form between sodium and chloride ions, but those bonds are formed with the help of god. why not have theistic chemistry? or that the universe is expanding, but god is helping it expand. why not have theistic cosmology?

those hypotheses are unscientific because they not only posit an intervention that isn't observed, but invoke a superfluous and supernatural intervention to explain a process that can be explained adequately using pure naturalism. god is a useless "add-on" here, and that's not the way science works. science works best when we make theories that assume no more than we need to. while it's logically possible for god to be guiding particles and directing evolution, we have no evidence that this is true. theistic evolution is not required by science; it is, as we must admit, simply something tacked on to make religious people feel better about a process that, if purely naturalistic, is taken as a direct attack on their worldview.

further, theistic evolution is, to use genie's own term, a "science stopper." if you say that god is making mutations, or expanding the universe, then we need investigate no further. what we don't understand can simply be fobbed off on the will of a divine being. there's need to look for that elusive naturalistic explanation.

the tactic of considering theistic evolution as "scientific" is a purely political one. the NCSE and others (viz., the american association for the advancement of science and the national academy of sciences), feel that to get evolution accepted and taught in schools, we need religious allies. and to get those allies, we have to accept their view that evolution was guided by god, even though we don't believe it ourselves.

science makes progress only when it doesn't evoke a god. even the NCSE accepts that "methodological naturalism" — the rejection of divine hypotheses — is the way that science has progressed. so why reject god when you're doing science, but then admit on the sly that he might be in there working away subtly and, perhaps, undetectably? that is a political view, not a scientific one, and it dilutes and pollutes the scientific enterprise. it also gives the public the false idea that theistic evolution is somehow okay with scientists.

it isn't. no evolutionary biologist puts in her scientific papers a note to the effect that god might be involved in the process she's studying. anyone doing that would be laughed out of the field. so if scientists reject theistic evolution in their own work, why accept it when the public believes it? it's pure hypocrisy to do so, and a blatant attempt to coddle believers.

i'd rather stand up for the purity and naturalism of science than accept forms of science that invoke god. yes, i'll be glad to work with religious people to help expel creationism from schools — and theistic evolution is a form of creationism!. what i won't do is give my imprimatur to a form of evolution that includes the supernatural. until we have some evidence for the supernatural in science — and we certainly don't at this point — let's not grant it simply to gain allies. that is a false alliance that, in the end, creates a public misunderstanding of science.

it is ironic that the national center for science education is willing to include theistic evolution as "scientific." it is wrong, it is hypocritical, and it's a cynical political tactic unbecoming to scientists. the NCSE has done terrific work in keeping creationism out of schools. but in saying that theistic evolution is "scientific," as genie did on sunday, we are shooting ourselves in the foot. what is science profited if we help evolution get accepted more widely, but in so doing lose our own scientific soul?

no thanks, wolf

(art and story by tom tomorrow)

"better than science"

after forty long hours in the desert and forty long hours on the mountaintop, indefatigable texas birther rudy davis descends unto youTube to deliver the gospel:

... i probably spent about eighty hours, maybe more, so far researching this, reading books, going to various websites, using the knowledge that i've gained in my physics class — lemmee share a little bit about my background and this isn't me like braggin' on my background, there's nothin' to brag about. y'know, when you ask me about my credentials are, i know how to use a shovel and, uh, i can clean a pretty good litter box, but i did go through four years of college and obtained a electrical engineering degree, with a minor in mechanical engineering, and, um, i passed my calculus classes. i loved calculus, i love math. i, uh, passed my trigonometry, geometry, analytical geometry, um, y'know, physics, uh, thermodynamics — i loved all that stuff. i love, y'know, mathematics and science since it was one of my favorite topics.

i'm not, um, completely ... uneducated. but i'm not the smartest guy in the world either. i'm not here saying i'm smarter than anybody — i think, for these things, the lord has to lead you into this, sort of, belief, uh, and you have to have a biblical perspective in order to understand what i'm about to say ...

and after a short digression into 9-11 trutherism:

... so i want you to think back, y'know, when somebody first told you that, t—, your reaction. 'cause what i'm about to say, i'm not sayin' for shock value. i couldn't care less if you like me or you din't like me, i could care less about, uh, how many subscribers i have. what i'm about to say i'm telling you because i believe it's the truth and i know 99.99 percent of you are going to reject it. i rejected it when i first heard it, until i started lookin' into it more, 'til i started reading my bible, 'til i started, uh, understanding, uh, a little bit more about the things that we've been told, and, uh, i would just ask you to look into it before you jump to the conclusion that i'm an absolute nut. and, again i'm just telling you this because there are — there's gonna be point-zero-zero-zero-one percent of you that, uh, is gonna receive it, just like, just like i received it and just like, y'know, there, there's a few, there's a few that can weed through all the BS that we've been told in this world and see what's goin' on.

but i wanna declare, uh, that i am a geocentrist. and uh, what a geocentrist is, is someone who believes that the earth is the center of the universe and does not move. lemmee say that again. the earth does not move, it does not rotate, it does not revolve, it does not, uh, go around the sun and it does not wobble. the bible says the earth cannot be moved. and, uh, that's what i'm goin' with.

and, y'know, when it comes to copernicus, galileo, uh, kepler, uh, carl sagan and einstein, all of 'em are flim-fam— flam artists. i believe they're all con artists and they're basically in a satanic deception that put forth satan's very, very first blue-ribbon lie. y'know — well, uh, you could go all the way back to the garden of eden, so i wouldn't say it's his first, but, uh, satan's blue-ribbon lie, at least one of them, is that the, uh, earth moves around the sun. okay? that absolutely is not true and i believe it with all my heart.

... now do i believe that carl sagan, einstein, kepler, uh ... uh ... copernicus and galileo were in some, y'know, plot where they communicated with each other? no, i don't believe they were communicatin' with each other through the centuries but what i do believe is, uh, that satan allows certain people to be puffed up with pride an' this world promotes, uh people and they get too smart for their, for their own good an' they just put out absolute BS. i mean we've just been lied to upon lied to.

... some people say that y'know, uh "the bible does, does not say how the heavens go, but the bible tells us how to go to heaven." in other words, they're tryin' to say that the bible is not a sci— is not a science book. but i would say that the bible is better than a science book. the bible is better [chuckling] than any science book ever written. and if it says the earth doesn't move, then it doesn't freakin' move. and uh, that's one thing you need to know about me. and, and you may be a christian watching this thinkin' i'm an absolute kook, but know this: when i read that bible, the difference between me and other christians is when i read that bible i believe what it says. i don't try to fit into my little, uh, box of how i think god should be or how the universe should be. if the bible says it, that's the way that it is. and i don't believe the king james bible has any errors.

that's right, folks, a hardcore wingnut conspiracy theorist who never doubted a rumor found in his yahoo inbox is calling a satanic hoax on the last 500 years of scientific discovery. eighty hours of what passes as deep thought in rudy's mind and the bible (king james version only, accept no imitations!) is all any right-thinking patriot needs.

to supply the perfect counterpoint to rudy's admitted defiant anti-intellectualism, enter working physicist sean carroll, someone who's certainly spent more than eighty hours on the subject. sean casually explains what real scientists and real mathematicians already know — the "known knowns", so to speak, wherein neither god nor satan nor any other strange supernatural, metaphysical or paranormal beings, forces or powers are anywhere to be found:

so, the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood. the reason why i emphasize this is because scientists, and skeptics for that matter, love to go right to the unknown things. there are many, many things that are unknown, from dark matter to quantum gravity to finance, okay? but there are also things that are known. and among the things that are known are how the matter around us in our everyday life actually works. and it's not just "we have a theory that works." it's better than that. we know that there are no new parts of nature that we haven't found yet that could exert a substantial influence over our everyday lives. there are no new particles or forces that could be relevant to your everyday life that science hasn't found yet.

... so we've looked. there could be plenty of new particles of nature, but they must be either weakly interacting, too heavy to create or too short-lived to detect. what that means is that they can't possibly be very relevant to your everyday life. they cannot affect your consciousness, you cannot blame them for being in a bad mood. you and everyone you know is made up of the standard model of particle physics and nothing else.

... we've ruled out every possible force that is both long range and strong enough to notice.

... the conclusion is that as far as the immediate world of experience is concerned, as far as what you see and touch and taste and feel as you go through your everyday life, we have the theory. we're done. that does not mean that we understand everything, but the underlying laws that describe what baseballs are made out of, or tables or living beings, we understand that. it's electrons and quarks with masses from the higgs field interacting via those forces. that's the everyday world.

... when it comes to the everyday world, we have figured out what the pieces are and what direction they can move in. that does not make us good world players or chess players. it does constrain the kind of games you can play. if someone has come up with a new chess strategy that involves the rook moving diagonally, you know that you can rule that out without listening to their elaborate presentation on it. likewise, if someone has a great new theory of living their lives that involves homeopathy or astrology, you can tune them out without listening to the details. because just knowing the fact that the standard model of particle physics is the right theory of the matter that makes up the everyday world is immediately enough to rule out a whole host of possible phenomena. anything you can't do with electrons, protons, neutrons, gravity and electromagnetism, you can't do in your basement.

... you cannot bend spoons with your mind — unless your mind tells your other arm to go out and bend the spoon. but you can't just do it with a new force emanating from your cortex because there are no such forces. you cannot predict the future, see around corners, the position of saturn when you were born sadly irrelevant to the rest of your life, blah-blah-blah ...

and in fact we known there is no life after death. sometimes even atheists and skeptics like to be open-minded about this because we haven't done all the right double-blind experiments, blah-blah-blah ... forget it! if you believe in life after death, tell me what particles contain the information that moves your soul from place to place. is it electrons? 'cause those would be easy to notice cause electrons are electrically charged and it's actually quite a lot of charge. is it atoms? but the atoms don't move very much when you die. if you believe that there's some way that you have an immortal soul that travels from place to place, then you're not just saying we don't know how it works, you are saying that our current knowledge of the laws of physics is wrong. which means you better give me a good reason to believe that our current knowledge of the laws of physics is wrong, because it's not, and i'm going to move on to more interesting things.

most of science's work, certainly that part which concerns everday human experience, has been done. science can explain through natural causes everything we do and everything that effects us between waking and sleeping, including waking and sleeping. whatever important unknowns remain lie beyond john q. public's quotidian concerns.

sean argues that even gravity, one of the universe's most ubiquitous, constant and far-reaching forces, can be ignored as "utterly, utterly irrelevant" to our lives since it is also one of the weakest. air travelers might quibble, but his point is that the activity of any purported forces or beings that supposedly affect or manipulate human lives on any regular and significant level would have to be stronger than gravity — and therefore, like gravity, noticable and provable. so we would have already noticed by now if any undiscovered entities were regularly intervening in the world by stopping bullets from hitting people or picking sides at sporting events. and we certainly know enough to ignore out-of-hand rudy's entreaties for us to "educate ourselves" by following up on his so-called research since it defies everything real scientists have discovered.

to justify itself, every religion claims to be not just relevant but inseparable and indispensible to the human experience — all while hiding just beyond reach in the supernatural. but science has yet to find any human activity that can't be explained by some combination of the natural forces we've thus far discovered. despite or because of the worst abuses of religion, the history of science has been the inexorable balkanization of gods and ghosts onto smaller and smaller islands of possibility. sorry rudy, but as of today, atlantis is sunk — even the king james version.

there is a cult of ignorance in the united states, and there has always been. the strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge".
— issac asimov

would'ja believe ... ?

voltaire, 18th-century philosopher:

qui est en droit de vous rendre absurde est en droit de vous rendre injuste.

[those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.]

william craig lane, 21st-century christian moralist:

if we believe, as i do, that god's grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of [the canaanite] children was actually their salvation. we are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven's incomparable joy. therefore, god does these children no wrong in taking their lives.

whom does god wrong in commanding the destruction of the canaanites? not the canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. not the children, for they inherit eternal life. so who is wronged? ironically, i think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the israeli soldiers themselves. can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? the brutalizing effect on these israeli soldiers is disturbing.

p.z. myers, 21st-century biologist and atheist:

it's always interesting when some god-walloper honestly follows through on the logical implications of his beliefs — he basically is compelled to admit that if you worship a tyrannical monster, you have to end up rationalizing monstrous tyrannies.

i don't think william lane craig is an intrinsically evil human being. but this is a case where it is clear that religion is a tool that allows good people to bypass decent moral positions and find justification to do evil.

quote of the day

courtesy of pz meyers, one-man walking existential threat to church ladies everywhere:

i have zero sympathy for intelligent people who stand before a grandiose monument to lies, an institution that is anti-scientific, anti-rational, and ultimately anti-human, in a place where children are being actively miseducated, an edifice dedicated to an abiding intellectual evil, and choose to complain about how those ghastly atheists are ruining everything. those people can just fuck off.

atheist powers — activate!

from 2009's dark reign: the list - wolverine, a tongue-in-cheek novelty one-shot wherein theism can be hazardous for your health, as described by pharygula's pz myers:

the godless must have some fans in the comic book world. in an issue of the list: wolverine, the heroes fantomex (a genetically engineered supersoldier) and captain marvel are faced with an army of zombie-like creatures, people who have been infected with an evil virus that can only take over your mind if you believe in some sort of god. so they swing into action, safe from the infection, because neither one believes in gods.

the money quote: oh, snap!

(art by esad ribic, story by jason aaron)

one nation under ...

the original christian fantasy:

the vastly improved noodly reality:

without a doubt, cthulhu's greatest trick was convincing the world that god exists ...

quote of the day

from self-described godless liberal evolutionary biologist and cephalopodiphile p.z. myers:

you can't use reason to talk someone out of a position they didn't use reason to arrive at ...

party poopers

(by robert t. balder)

krollateral damage

i offer two neologisms in honor of the now-infamous chuck kroll, an overzealous right wing troll who thought sending pz meyers @ pharyngula a death threat using his wife melanie kroll's corporate email account was teh righteous pwn.

she was fired.

1) krollateral damage: noun — a loved one who becomes the inadvertent victim of thoughtless and/or venial and/or petty actions aimed at someone else. usage — "suzie's mom became the krollateral damage after suzie's ex forwarded mom the photos that suzie sent him of her balling her new dude." update: synonym — trollateral damage (so obvious i missed it!) 2) chuckroll: (also: chuckkroll, chuckkkroll) verb — to inadvertently cause harm to a loved one through thoughtless and/or venial and/or petty actions aimed at someone else. (not to be confused with "rickroll", to which it has no relation.) usage — "suzie's mom got chuckrolled when suzie's ex forwarded mom the photos that suzie sent him of her balling her new dude." origin — july 17, 2008 (you heard 'em both here first, folks!)

quote of the day

on creationism, intelligent design and the wedge strategy, from daily kos:

fortunately creationists don't realize that their wedge strategy is a two-edged sword. once they decided to adopt intelligent design and don a cloak of empiricism, attempting to wage war in the same evidentiary arena as reputable career scientists required their ceding to naturalism larger and larger swaths of territory — such as the acknowledgment "micro-evolution" — if they hope to be taken seriously on the battleground of ideas. the only question left is how much of their theology they're willing to give up in order to win the standing and prestige from the scientific community they so desperately crave. they may not realize it now, or perhaps are still merely too stubborn to admit it, even to themselves, but their own vanity is methodically boxing them into irrelevance.

but he's not there

only 1% of people think of god as female, with 62% considering god to be male, the online survey conducted earlier this month of 1,050 adults in britain found.1

i remember sometime during the last millenium catching part of a documentary about christians in korea or some such topic and the one clip that stayed with me was an interview of a korean man saying that not only did he believe in jesus christ, son of god, but he also believed that christ was a caucasian with blond hair and blue eyes.

i immediately thought: "how horrible!" — this pathetic person had built himself a mountain that he could never scale.

most theists and deists with an anthropomorphic vision of their diety create one in their own image and posit themselves as the "chosen people" of that god, yet here was a person submitting to a god that he could never claim kin to, no matter how hard he prays, no matter what he sacrifices.

it seems that instead of enjoying the ego-boost most religions give their faithful, this person was basically condemning himself to a permanent inferiority complex. and if god is white, blond and blue-eyed, how could this person ever have any kind of relationship with any white, blond and blue-eyed human being in which he wasn't automatically inferior (perhaps even inferior to any caucasian nonbeliever as well), all the way down to his corpuscles?

watching that guy declare his strange faith just seemed so heartbreakingly tragic.

---

¹ hat tip to p.z. myers @ pharyngula. from commenter greta christina:

the zombies' song "she's not there" keeps coming to mind. with a little tweaking, it makes an excellent atheist song. well, let me tell you 'bout the way he looks the way he acts and the color of his hair his voice is soft and cool his eyes are clear and bright but he's not there!

the great tantra challenge

on 3 march 2008, in a popular tv show, sanal edamaruku, the president of rationalist international, challenged india's most "powerful" tantri (black magician) to demonstrate his powers on him. that was the beginning of an unprecedented experiment. after all his chanting of mantra (magic words) and ceremonies of tantra failed, the tantrik decided to kill sanal edamaruku with the "ultimate destruction ceremony" on live tv. sanal eamaruku agreed and sat in the altar of the black magic ritual. india tv observed skyrocketing viewership rates. everything started, when uma bharati (former chief minister of the state of madhya pradesh) accused her political opponents in a public statement of using tantrik powers to inflict damage upon her. in fact, within a few days, the unlucky lady had lost her favorite uncle, hit the door of her car against her head and found her legs covered with wounds and blisters. india tv, one of india's major hindi channels with national outreach, invited sanal edamaruku for a discussion on "tantrik power versus science". pandit surinder sharma, who claims to be the tantrik of top politicians and is well known from his tv shows, represented the other side. during the discussion, the tantrik showed a small human shape of wheat flour dough, laid a thread around it like a noose and tightened it. he claimed that he was able to kill any person he wanted within three minutes by using black magic. sanal challenged him to try and kill him. the tantrik tried. he chanted his mantras (magic words): "om linga linga lina linga, kili kili ...." but his efforts did not show any impact on sanal — not after three minutes, and not after five. the time was extended and extended again. the original discussion program should have ended here, but the "breaking news" of the ongoing great tantra challenge was overrunning all program schedules. now the tantrik changed his technique. he started sprinkling water on sanal and brandishing a knife in front of him. sometimes he moved the blade all over his body. sanal did not flinch. then he touched sanal's head with his hand, rubbing and rumpling up his hair, pressing his forehead, laying his hand over his eyes, pressing his fingers against his temples. when he pressed harder and harder, sanal reminded him that he was supposed to use black magic only, not forceful attacks to bring him down. the tantrik took a new run: water, knife, fingers, mantras. but sanal kept looking very healthy and even amused. after nearly two hours, the anchor declared the tantrik's failure. the tantrik, unwilling to admit defeat, tried the excuse that a very strong god whom sanal might be worshipping obviously protected him. "no, i am an atheist," said sanal edamaruku. finally, the disgraced tantrik tried to save his face by claiming that there was a never-failing special black magic for ultimate destruction, which could, however, only been done at night. bad luck again, he did not get away with this, but was challenged to prove his claim this very night in another "breaking news" live program. during the next three hours, india tv ran announcements for the great tantra challenge that called several hundred million people to their tv sets. the encounter took place under the open night sky. the tantrik and his two assistants were kindling a fire and staring into the flames. sanal was in good humour. once the ultimate magic was invoked, there wouldn't be any way back, the tantrik warned. within two minutes, sanal would get crazy, and one minute later he would scream in pain and die. didn't he want to save his life before it was too late? sanal laughed, and the countdown begun. the tantriks chanted their "om linga linga linga linga, kili kili kili ...." followed by ever changing cascades of strange words and sounds. the speed increased hysterically. they threw all kinds of magic ingredients into the flames that produced changing colours, crackling and fizzling sounds and white smoke. while chanting, the tantrik came close to sanal, moved his hands in front of him and touched him, but was called back by the anchor. after the earlier covert attempts of the tantrik to use force against sanal, he was warned to keep distance and avoid touching sanal. but the tantrik "forgot" this rule again and again. now the tantrik wrote sanal's name on a sheet of paper, tore it into small pieces, dipped them into a pot with boiling butter oil and threw them dramatically into the flames. nothing happened. singing and singing, he sprinkled water on sanal, mopped a bunch of peacock feathers over his head, threw mustard seed into the fire and other outlandish things more. sanal smiled, nothing happened, and time was running out. only seven more minutes before midnight, the tantrik decided to use his ultimate weapon: the clod of wheat flour dough. he kneaded it and powdered it with mysterious ingredients, then asked sanal to touch it. sanal did so, and the grand magic finale begun. the tantrik pierced blunt nails on the dough, then cut it wildly with a knife and threw them into the fire. that moment, sanal should have broken down. but he did not. he laughed. forty more seconds, counted the anchor, twenty, ten, five ... it's over! millions of people must have uttered a sigh of relief in front their tvs. sanal was very much alive. tantra power had miserably failed. tantriks are creating such a scaring atmosphere that even people, who know that black magic has no base, can just break down out of fear, commented a scientist during the program. it needs enormous courage and confidence to challenge them by actually putting one's life at risk, he said. by doing so, sanal edamaruku has broken the spell, and has taken away much of the fear of those who witnessed his triumph. in this night, one of the most dangerous and wide spread superstitions in india suffered a severe blow.