How is the difference in levels of biological compexity ‘vast’? Both organisms are built on a base of very complex cellular machinery. Granted, humans seem to have a more complex body plan and certainly more complex behaviour, but I would call this difference small compared to the complexity that anyone needs just to get off the ground as a multicellular organism.

Some people seemed to take offense when it was discovered that a lowly parasite (Trichomonas vaginalis) has more than double the number of genes than a human. Good thing that we can invoke network effects to hold on to our sense of being the bestest, complexiest organism around!

In my not-so-humble opinion, the best popular science books (of which I have read hundreds) are the ones which are clear, informative, and keep my (the reader’s) interest. I do not wish to look over the shoulder of leading researchers – as a scientist who is familiar of the hygiene and people skills of many top researchers in my field, I’d prefer not to be in the same room as them.

This raises an issue that has been bothering me for some time now: why is it obligatory to stuff science books with ‘human interest fluff’? Do we really need to know that Dr X, who smashes atoms by day, beats his dog at night? Does that have any relevance on his or her work? Doesn’t that nurture the ‘cult of personalities’ which runs counter to the scientific ideal of not respecting any authority, rather let the work stand on its own? Do publishers think that we need to ‘connect’ with these guys (I’m using the gender neutral ‘guy’) to appreciate their work?

BTW: This fluff isn’t only pervasive in popular writing, it has found its way into textbooks. Open any Freshman astronomy text and you’ll find numerous mini-bios on Newton (who was a right bastard), Tycho (who was a colorful character but they leave out the best parts), Jocelyn Bell (who was screwed out of a Nobel prize by her adviser – but that’s not mentioned).

Now that I write this I guess my problem all this human interest is they never tell the juicy bits of gossip about scientists – it’s all People magazine but no National Inquirer!

My Imaginary Friend in the Sky! Don’t we get enough false certitude from other sources without letting it invade this supposed sanctuary of reason?

Aren’t these articles edited for at least surface allegiance to the notion of reasonable scepticism so as not to impeach the the credibility of “Skeptic”? It doesn’t seem so, does it.

Computing is the only engineering discipline I can think of where increasing visible complexity is thought to improve a product. It seems that there is little natural selection happening in software and hardware designs to keep them outwardly simple and effective: there are lots of sheep who accept every suggestion as being good and scarcely any predators to apply reason and plain common sense.

All religions are bad, but the religion of complexity, with its lure of High Priest status, is going to lead us into a technological Dark Age unless it is stopped in its tracks.