A lot happened. For a detailed discussion of TAM8, check out my roundtable chat with Tim Farley (What’s the Harm?), Blake Smith (MonsterTalk), and Derek & Swoopy on Skepticality. There’s been a lot to talk about.

Most especially, people have been talking about Phil Plait’s powerful talk, now known to the blogosphere as the “Don’t be a dick” speech (after Wheaton’s Law, an internet maxim that provided the theme of Phil’s presentation). In his talk, Phil argued that skeptics who have outreach goals should get serious about communication:

In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn’t a war. You might try to say it is, but it’s not a war. We aren’t trying to kill an enemy. We’re trying to persuade other humans. And at times like that, we don’t need warriors. What we need are diplomats.

Phil Plait argues passionately at TAM8. Photo by Marc-Julien Objois

You may not be surprised to hear that I loved this speech. I think it was an important moment in recent skeptical history, and it meant a lot to me personally. “Be nice to people” is a drum I’ve been beating for a long time. I was moved more than I could express to hear someone of Phil’s stature make that case so forcefully from the big stage at skepticism’s big event.

No matter how you look at it, he is of course right: there many excellent reasons to tend toward treating people with respect and courtesy. It’s morally bad to be cruel (and usually unnecessary); it’s contrary to scientific and journalistic ethics (and the search for truth) to shout down legitimate alternate views; it blinds us to flaws in our own reasoning if we fail to seriously consider viewpoints we don’t like. Most importantly (this was the theme of Phil’s talk) science communication is more effective when it starts with warmth and respect.

Those are all excellent topics for further exploration, but my aim today is smaller. I’d like to add one more footnote to the other arguments for civility, which is this:

Many people have quite good reasons for believing in the paranormal.

Lines Through The World

Individual skeptics sometimes form an impression that paranormal beliefs are held by strange people for inexplicable reasons — but not by our kind of people. Speaking personally, I’ll confess that I’m sometimes taken off guard when someone I know turns out to believe some bizarre paranormal thing, even though I know by now to expect it.

But a simple survey of our friends, family and co-workers will often put paid to the notion that paranormal belief is uncommon or unusual. Try it. Gently ask around. If you’re like me, it’s likely that most of the people you know accept some paranormal claim: perhaps alien visitation, or ghosts, or dowsing, or psychic powers, or some form of alternative medicine. The paranormal is everywhere: in labs, in schools, in hospitals, and at your Christmas dinner table.

Faced with the ubiquitousness of such beliefs, a few skeptics are tempted to think there must be something special about those who don’t believe. That conceit hardly seems worthy of dwelling upon, and yet people have actually tried to convince me on this basis that it’s not worth teaching critical thinking. “The smart people already get it,” I’ve been told, “and the stupid people never will. Don’t waste your time.”

I suppose it’s human to want to draw these lines through the world: on this side, the good smart people; on the other side, the bad dumb people. But the world is not nearly so simple.

Raising My Hand

One of the interesting things Phil Plait did during his challenging TAM8 speech was to ask the 1300 skeptics in the room this question:

How many of you here today used to believe in something — used to, past tense — whether it was flying saucers, psychic powers, religion, anything like that? You can raise your hand if you want to.

I was one of the majority of people who raised their hands. If I could have, I would have raised my hand dozens of times for all the dozens of paranormal claims I used to accept.

Does this mean that most of the people at TAM are stupid? Of course not, and I don’t think anyone would make that argument. And yet, I quite often hear skeptics talk about “the woos” as though “they” (in practice, our own friends and neighbors) belong to some alien species.

The Reasonableness of Weird Things

But here’s the thing: most pseudoscientific beliefs are not stupid. They’re just wrong.

Consider two people, Ada and Bee. Both consider themselves critical thinkers. Both walk into a pharmacy looking for headache medication. Ada buys Tylenol, because it has been recommended by people she trusts, because she knows from experience that it works for her, and because she thinks most of alternative medicine is hogwash. By contrast, Bee buys a homeopathic remedy — because it has been recommended by people she trusts, because she knows from experience that it works for her, and because she thinks most of mainstream medicine is hogwash.

In this case, neither the “skeptical” Ada nor the “credulous” Bee has any medical training. Neither has direct knowledge of the primary medical literature about acetaminophen, nor of the primary skeptical literature on homeopathy. I submit that neither Ada nor Bee should be much applauded or scorned for their beliefs. They’re both just regular folks making regular decisions based on the best information they have.

In my experience, the top reasons people believe weird things are not only understandable, but identical to the reasons most skeptics believe things: they are persuaded by personal experiences (or by the experiences of a loved one); or, they are persuaded by the sources they have consulted.

For example, I know several people who believe in ghosts for the perfectly straightforward reason that they personally saw a ghost. They’re willing to consider alternate explanations, but c’mon: of course their personal ghost encounter leans heavily on the scales of evidence. Science may say it’s wise for Ebenezer Scrooge to suppose Marley’s specter “may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard,” but Christmas Carol audiences understand that ghost belief would be pretty reasonable under the circumstances. (And, when ghost witnesses are critical-minded enough to dig into some books or online research, the sources they find authoritatively argue that ghosts are probably real.)

This pattern comes up again and again, from the woman who shyly speaks about her alien abduction experience, to the friends who enthuse about dowsing rods, to the family members who swear by alternative medicine: “My personal experience confirms that this is true.”

Yes, reasoning from visceral experience is a recipe for false belief. Obscure research tells me that my friend is extremely unlikely to have been abducted by aliens. But she was there, and I wasn’t. I don’t know what she saw, not for sure — and I can’t deny that her experience of seeing it could make a pretty compelling basis for personal belief.

Now, I want to be clear here: I’m not suggesting that personal experience is an adequate basis for accepting paranormal claims (it isn’t) or that these claims are true (so far as science can tell, they’re not). I’m saying that, given their information and tools, many paranormalists have understandable reasons for belief.

The Difference Between Believers and Skeptics?

However we label ourselves or others, we come up against the fact that people are complicated. Generalizations are doomed to inadequacy. But, I will suggest that the differences between skeptics and paranormal believers have less to do with innate credulity, and more to do with training and resources.

When I was a scruffy young boy, I found a Bigfoot footprint in the wilderness of British Columbia. Devouring every sasquatch book I could find (there were several in my elementary school library), I learned the persuasive facts that many, many people had found footprints or reported encounters with Bigfoot, and that sasquatch photographs had even been taken. Therefore, I believed in Bigfoot.

What I did not have was any understanding of how those many witnesses could all be wrong (myself included), or how on Earth hoaxing could account for most prints. I didn’t have any access to the skeptical books or magazines (still rare today, but then vanishingly so) that could have explained it to me. And, most importantly, I did not know what I did not know. I had to be taught to ask counter-intuitive questions, and I had to be taught how to find the best answers.

I wasn’t born knowing that stuff. Nobody is. As Phil Plait’s speech put it, “Skepticism is hard.” It’s hard, and it has to be taught. And that is how it can be that several hundred thoughtful skeptics at the The Amazing Meeting 8 used to believe in magic.

Not every kid my age had that fear, but many did — I think probably millions. Perhaps you were one of the kids who felt yawning horror at each unexpected flash on the horizon, or relief at the sound of ordinary thunder?

I was recently reminded of those feelings when I received a kind letter from a man named Jason Guay. A child mental health therapist with Niagara Child and Youth Services, Jason wrote to share one of the most encouraging things I’ve heard during my tenure at Junior Skeptic:

Many of the children I serve suffer from mental illness and I think they deserve only the best science has to offer if they are to have a chance. Your issues of Junior Skeptic are read to my children in my social skill class and compliment cognitive-behavioural therapy nicely! They often come in with irrational beliefs (phobias/generalized anxiety) and by reading Junior Skeptic they are able find courage to challenge many of these irrational beliefs and start to think like a scientist, resulting in reduced anxiety. …

I often use the Scooby Doo issue to help ease children’s anxiety of ghosts and the unknown and it is very effective. Good job!

I have a young son of my own, so you can imagine what a letter like that feels like.

But Jason went on to say something more, something I thought I should share with you.

Lately, I have had a lot of kids who come very concerned about the end of the world in 2012. … These poor children often tell me that have had countless sleepless nights,  and have lower grades as a result of their worry.

I think you may be able to imagine how I — as a father — feel about that, too.

I’ve long suspected that we skeptics may underestimate the amount of distress the 2012 idea is causing. Skeptics know that the end of the world has come and gone hundreds of times, and so we feel in our hearts that this 2012 business must be a trivial issue. It’s easy to feel cavalier about fears we don’t share. It’s easy to forget what those night terrors feel like — especially for children.

Of course kids are worried about 2012. Hype about the coming end of the world is everywhere. Nor is it only kids who are concerned. In my immediate circle, I know at least three adults who are deeply worried, and others who have at least occasional moments of “what if?” unease. At a picnic yesterday, sitting there in the evening sun, a friend with a hard science degree asked, “Doesn’t it seem like there’s something weird going on with the Earth? All these earthquakes, volcanoes…?”

That’s not a dumb question. It does seem that way. I know I’m thinking a lot more about earthquakes after Haiti. But seeming doesn’t make it so, and thankfully there are ways to find out. “Well, you have an iPhone in your hand,” I said. “Why don’t you Google it right now?”

Google autofill reveals concern about "rising" number of earthquakes

And that’s what she did, right there on the beach. Of course, my friend has the research habits to have done that without my suggestion. She also has the scientific background to feel satisfied with the answers from the US Geological Survey or this short, simple New York Times article from British Geological Survey seismologist Roger Musson. (Incidentally, the answer is “No.” Recent earthquake activity has been especially tragic, but not unusually powerful or frequent.)

But not everyone has those skills (or, for that matter, confidence in science). I don’t mean a word of judgment when I say that. When grandmothers hear from their friends or grocers or televisions that the hundreds of thousands of 2010 earthquake victims are just the beginning, why shouldn’t that give them pause? When children hear the same thing, why shouldn’t they be afraid?

As I type this, some of those children are lying awake with the terrified belief that the world will end in two years. Their nightmares are like my own childhood nuclear horror, but different in one critically important respect: 2012 fears are not based on an actual danger. What’s the harm of 2012 scaremongering? Children suffering for no reason.

What do we, as skeptics, do about that? Step one is simply to internalize the same truth again and again and again: when paranormal beliefs burn out of control, people get hurt. Ordinary, smart, good people — people like your loved ones, and mine.

Free online: Skeptic magazine's recent cover story "A NASA Scientist Answers the Top 20 Questions About 2012"

And then, we need to roll up our sleeves. With that in mind, I’d like to ask you to do something this week, something small: try to make someone feel better about 2012. Talk to a friend. Tweet a resource. Share a link.

Here’s mine: Skeptic magazine has made available our recent “A NASA Scientist Answers the Top 20 Questions About 2012″ cover story (by Dr. David Morrison, Director of the NASA Lunar Science Institute and Senior Scientist in the NASA Astrobiology Institute). It’s free in both English and Spanish translation.

I am just so delighted with this book! Loxton hits the key concepts perfectly, and without being stuffy about it. A wonderful book to donate to your local library.

I was similarly honored to receive positive reviews from Phil Plait and from P.Z. Myers — both among the most popular science bloggers on Earth. I just about did cartwheels when P.Z. unexpectedly urged readers to “order a copy fast for the kids in your life!”

P.Z., did, however, dislike one subsection of Evolution:

I recommend it highly, but with one tiny reservation. The author couldn’t resist the common temptation to toss in something about religion at the end, and he gives the wrong answer: it’s the standard pablum, and he claims that “Science as a whole has nothing to say about religion.”

I definitely would not wish to bellyache about a small part of a very kind (and much-appreciated) review, with which I’m genuinely very pleased. It strikes me, though, that P.Z.’s concern offers a convenient access point for a topic I’ve been meaning to touch upon: the relationship between skepticism and atheism.

Pandering to Religion?

It might be useful at this point if I quote the entirety of this brief sub-section from my book:

What about religion?

This is a question people often ask when wondering about evolution. They want to connect the discoveries of science to their religious understanding.

Unfortunately, this isn’’t something science can help with. Individual scientists may have personal opinions about religious matters, but science as a whole has nothing to say about religion.

Science is our most reliable method for sorting out how the natural world functions, but it can’’t tell us what those discoveries mean in a spiritual sense. Your family, friends and community leaders are the best people to ask about religious questions.

In blogs, tweets, and direct messages, quite a few of my friends in the atheist community have raised concerns about this section, calling it “the pandering paragraph” or “one of the only parts I disagree with in your book.”

My editor was caught off guard by this sharp focus on a minute sub-section, but I knew in advance that this was likely. It follows from an old, old split within the skeptical community. On the one hand, there are skeptics who see god as simply the granddaddy of all paranormal claims; on the other hand, there are those who think the core claims of theistic belief are different in kind from testable paranormal claims, and therefore out of scope for scientific skepticism.

I am part of this latter group. I think skepticism is a different project than atheism. This is the de facto position for most skeptical and scientific organizations, but advocating this in the wake of the new atheism has become a bit of a lonely thing to do.

Cynical Fibbing?

I don’t mean to imply that atheist reviewers are unkind in their critiques of this section of my book. Quite the opposite: a common theme seems to be sympathy that I was (they feel) forced to make this concession. P.Z., for example, writes,

It’s only two paragraphs, and I sympathize with the sad fact that speaking the truth on this matter — that science says your religion is false — is likely to get the book excluded from school libraries everywhere….

Likewise, according to a kind reviewer from New Zealand,

Loxton’s inadequate reply was unavoidable, given the unwritten social rule that religion has a special role in our society. That we are not allowed to criticise religion. Any properly adequate reply would have lead to people being “offended” and campaigns to exclude the book for schools.

This idea — that anything short of a denunciation of religion must entail dishonesty — is quite common among atheist activists. In a fascinating Darwin Day episode of the JREF’s For Good Reason podcast, heavyweight Richard Dawkins remarks,

there are times when I can be persuaded by some of my colleagues that it would be better, for example, for the cause of getting proper science education in American schools if people like me and PZ Myers and Jerry Coyne were a little bit nicer to religious people. But I think it’s OK if some people are like that, but I really do passionately care about what’s true — what’s true about the world, what’s true about the universe. And I’m not one who’s going to compromise on that for the sake of some kind of political expediency. Others can do that, and maybe they’re politically wise to do that — but I can’t go along with that. I care too much about the truth.

Let’s look at that. Are the only two choices confrontation or dishonesty? Does being “a little bit nicer to religious people” necessarily entail a “compromise…for the sake of some kind of political expediency”?

I respectfully submit that the answer is “no.” It has long struck me as strange that atheists and religious fundamentalists share an assumption that atheism and acceptance of evolution are the same thing. This assumption is,  at least in demographic terms, incorrect. Discussions about public attitudes toward evolution typically neglect a remarkable fact:

In North America, most of the people who accept evolution are religious.

And, I don’t mean by a small margin, either. We’re talking about an overwhelming majority. For decades, Americans who think “Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process” have consistently outnumbered those who think God had no part in evolution by margin of three to one (or more). Some of these theistic evolutionists subscribe to an Intelligent Design-type belief that is clearly not supported by the evidence, but many mean something altogether more metaphysical (such as the common Catholic idea that god infused immaterial souls into hominids at some point in human evolution, or the notion that all natural processes are divinely ordained).

Given that, I think we can confidently conclude that most people who say evolution is compatible with god say so, not for political expediency, but because this is what they believe.

But I Am Not Religious

Among those who accept evolution, I am not part of that theistic majority. It happens that I am a thoroughly secular atheist. Does Evolution, then, intentionally avoid confronting theism because, as one reviewer suggests, a “clear comment on religion probably would have prevented the book getting into many schools”?

Nope. The statement in the book is simplified more than I’d prefer (the sociology and biology of belief are valid areas of inquiry, and religiously-flavored empirical claims like weeping statues may of course be investigated by science) but it is what I actually think: that evolution happened; that science is our best means of discovering the natural world; and that metaphysics is not my job.

It is my opinion that the core claims of most religions are out of scope for science, and thus for scientific skepticism. No experiment or observation can shed any direct light on the types of religious claims that people care most about — claims such as the existence of souls, god, or an afterlife.

I’m reminded of the exchange in which the Fourteenth Dalai Lama told Carl Sagan it would be “hard to disprove” reincarnation. “Plainly,” Sagan concluded,

the Dalai Lama is right. Religious doctrine that is insulated from disproof has little reason to worry about the advance of science. The grand idea, common to many faiths, of a Creator of the Universe is one such doctrine — difficult alike to demonstrate or to dismiss.

Such ideas cannot even be formulated as scientific questions. Critiquing them is clearly outside the scope of a natural history book for kids.

Then Why Include that Section At All?

P.Z. Myers suggests that “it would have been better to leave it out than to perpetuate this silly myth [that science cannot disprove theism].”

Should I have omitted this sub-section? Perhaps, but I don’t think so. In fact, I fought to include it, arguing that it might be the most important part of the book. After all, the concept of the book was to raise and discuss common concerns. This question, “What about religion?” is, without any doubt the single most common concern people have when they consider the evidence for evolution. I could hardly ignore that.

So, how did I answer this sensitive and nearly universal question?

As simply and honestly as I knew how.

I’m excited to announce the release of my new book Evolution: How We and All Living Things Came to Be (from Kids Can Press). Years in the making, this full-color, illustrated hardcover book based upon Junior Skeptic is available now!

• view the Skeptic.com listing >

(Also available from bricks & mortar booksellers throughout North America, and from Amazon.com)

The Project

Evolution: How We and All Living Things Came to Be is a straight-ahead introduction to the fact of evolution, to its mechanisms, and to the misunderstandings that surround it. The book aims to explain how evolution works — and how we know for a fact that it happens. It is suitable for readers aged 8 – 13.

There are many fine kids books about evolution, but this one is distinguished by its skeptical pedigree. While laying out the evidence for evolution, this book also takes a critical look at common objections to evolutionary theory. Those pseudoscientific notions (“Isn’t there a dinosaur still alive in Africa someplace? Doesn’t that mean evolution didn’t happen?”) are major barriers to understanding for many people. Luckily, getting to the bottom of those sorts of questions is what skeptics do.

The writing is as clear as I can possibly make it — and then some. Nothing teaches you to strip out ambiguity and jargon like writing for kids. After seven years on Junior Skeptic, I’ve had a lot of practice distilling complex ideas for younger readers. All the same, working closely with award-winning editor Valerie Wyatt (veteran of over 100 children’s books) taught me more than a few tricks — and infused Evolution, I believe, with yet further clarity and depth.

It’s a valuable process, but round after round of edits and drafts and versions can leave your head spinning. Is it good? Is it clear and precise, or as colorless as a phone book? It’s hard to tell after a while.

That’s one reason I’m so pleased to hear positive initial reactions! Literary review Quill & Quire calls Evolution: How We and All Living Things Came to Be,

A full-throated defense and explication of Darwin’s theory…kept light and accessible by Loxton’s sense of humour and breezy prose style.

Whew! That certainly is what I was hoping for!

This illustration (created by Daniel Loxton for Evolution) started out as a hand-sculpted, hand-painted physical model.

The Art

Evolution is packed with large, full-color illustrations: cartoons; diagrams; photographs; and, complex scenes featuring photorealistic computer generated creatures like ichthyosaurs and mammoths.

Some Skeptic readers don’t realize I illustrate my own articles. Perhaps surprisingly, in terms of raw hours, illustration and design (such as Skeptic magazine covers and Junior Skeptic layout) are still the largest part of my work in skepticism.

On Evolution, my hand touched virtually every illustration: sometimes metaphorically (as in the digital colors for cartoons) and sometimes much more literally than one might guess. For example, my hominid friend Lucy here started out as a hand-sculpted, hand-painted physical model — with individually hand-punched strands of genuine hair! (I’m not sure I would recommend that technique to anyone!)

But I couldn’t have done it alone. Many of the images in Evolution were created with the help of ace cartoonist and 3D-modeling guru Jim W. W. Smith (who works with me here in the Junior Skeptic studio). Jim was responsible for some of the funniest and cleverest flourishes — and also for a considerable subset of the hard work.

Support the Educational Work of the Skeptics Society

It’s a wonderful feeling to bring a project like this to fruition, because it has the potential (I believe) to do some good in the world. I’d like to thank the Skeptics Society for giving me the opportunity to develop projects of this kind — especially Skeptic co-publisher Pat Linse, this book’s Producer.

I’d also like to thank the many individual donors and subscribers who in turn support Junior Skeptic and the other educational outreach work of the Skeptics Society.

To lend your own support, please let your friends know they may purchase a copy of Evolution: How We and All Living Things Came to Be at

www.skeptic.com/productlink/b136HB

Or, even better: the Skeptics Society will give a copy of the book as a thank you gift to any donor at the $100 level (or higher)! To learn more, visit

www.skeptic.com/donate

Once upon a time my wife and I sat down for scrambled eggs with Michael Shermer and Julia Sweeney.

We were a little giddy. It was our first time in Las Vegas — and our honeymoon. I was a lifelong skeptic attending my first skeptics’ conference: The Amazing Meeting 2, hosted by the James Randi Educational Foundation. (300 skeptics in one room! Imagine it!) And now we were having breakfast with a genuine movie star.

We were chattering away over coffee when Michael clapped his hands together. “Alright,” he said, suddenly all business, every bit the dynamic leader. “Can we get these Junior Skeptic books out this year?”

At that time I was still settling into my role as writer-illustrator for Junior Skeptic (the kids’ science section bound into every issue of Skeptic magazine). Shortly before the conference, Pat Linse (Art Director and co-publisher of Skeptic, and surely the least-known major player in the skeptical movement) had conceived an ambitious plan for me: a series of full-color spin-off books based upon Junior Skeptic. These books would comprise an encyclopedic, lavishly illustrated, multi-volume critique of paranormal claims — attractive, accessible for kids, and with the production values to truly compete in the marketplace of ideas.

“Well,” I said, “Here’s the thing. Pat wants each volume to collect four issues of Junior Skeptic. At book density, that’s probably 124 pages per volume. Each page needs about two illustrations. Times four books, that’s 1000 glossy full-color illustrations.”

We all digested this. ”This isn’t much like a regular academic book project,” I said. “Think of it like making a feature film. I’ll have to hire help somehow, which we haven’t got budget for. I still have to research and write most of the Junior Skeptic material we’re going to adapt. Even at just a few hundred illos, this project will take several years.”

The Long Road

My movie analogy was more apt than I knew. This project was too big to publish in-house. We needed a big commercial publisher, and (just as in Hollywood) that’s the tricky part. You may have Lord of the Rings in your head, but without the right studio, there’s no movie.

And so started a long process with three prongs:

1. I continued to produce Junior Skeptic on the established quarterly schedule (with all art created in book-ready full color, despite Junior Skeptic‘s greyscale format);
2. Pat Linse and I hired cartoonist and 3D computer modeling guru Jim W. W. Smith to help me create hundreds of additional illustrations for spin-off books;
3. Starting with Michael’s contacts and insight, I set to work trying to find the right commercial publisher.

Soon, my weekends and late nights were consumed by this contracting process: cold letters, negotiations, referrals, potential deals. I made rewarding contacts at some of the biggest kids’ publishers in the US — wonderful editors who loved what we were doing, and would have loved to give our project a home. But it was a lot for a publishing house to take on: our proposed series was big, 100% skeptical, with hefty production requirements — and with me (then a first-time book author) at the helm.

Months of such conversations flew by, and then years. And all throughout, we just kept working.

The Dawn of Evolution

We discovered further challenges as we went along. One was that we couldn’t just pick one umbrella topic — say, cryptozoology — and simply make all the content for a book on that topic. Junior Skeptic requires variety: we couldn’t cover the yeti, and then immediately turn around and do an issue on Bigfoot. We needed to mix it up: the yeti, then the Bermuda Triangle, then the Curse of King Tut….

Along the way, I did a two-issue story on evolution. This was a straight science treatment, rather than Junior Skeptic‘s usual direct criticism of paranormal claims. It was intended as a standalone magazine feature. Still, in keeping with our now-established pipeline, we created all the art — computer-generated 3D dinosaurs, cartoons, diagrams, location photography from around the world — in book-ready full color.

It was well-received. Bestselling science author Dr. Donald Prothero even called it “a wonderfully clear, up-to-date, and well-illustrated account of how evolution works.” Which raised the obvious question: why not publish the evolution story as its own standalone book?

And so we found our entities multiplying like Occam’s own nightmare. We began to shop around an additional giant book project: Evolution.

The Perfect Home (Times Two)

Today happens to be the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s Origin of Species. As we shopped Evolution around, the 2009 Darwin anniversary year (a global celebration of arguably the most profound discovery in scientific history) was part of our pitch.

At large US publisher after publisher, the answer was the same: “The book is wonderful, we all love it here in the office. But we think it’s too controversial right now.” This will come as little surprise to Skepticblog readers, but it was crushingly frustrating — especially because the book was not confrontational in the slightest. It just clearly explained the central concept of biology.

Thankfully, this frustration didn’t last. Evolution did find the perfect home: Kids Can Press, Canada’s largest publisher of children’s books (a division of media giant Corus, and home of “Franklin the Turtle” and other popular franchises).

the first Junior Skeptic book, available only to students and museum-goers in Portugal

Even better (if also more complicated): at the same moment that Kids Can Press decided they wanted Evolution, so did a huge philanthropic organization in Portugal. The Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation wanted their own full-color, Portuguese-language evolution book to distribute free to school kids, as a tie in to their own Darwin 2009 celebrations (including the largest Darwin-themed museum exhibit in the world, and a lecture series opened by punctuated equilibrium co-theorist Niles Eldredge).

Thanks to the gracious public spirit of everyone at both Kids Can Press and the Gulbenkian Foundation, an unusual three-way agreement was worked out. In February 2009, in honor of Darwin’s 200th birthday, the Skeptics Society proudly announced that distribution of the Portuguese adaptation was already underway — putting Darwin’s discovery into the hands of thousands of school kids for free!

Evolution — for release February, 2010

new art Daniel Loxton created for Evolution (Kids Can Press, 2010)

Meanwhile, Evolution was already in full production at Kids Can Press.

This English-language book — for hardcover release throughout North America in February 2010 — is a completely rewritten and expanded new book with a unique life of its own. It features many all-new sections, and tons of never-before-published art. Edited by Valerie Wyatt (author of over a dozen kids’ science books, and award-winning editor of over a hundred) and produced by Skeptic‘s own Pat Linse, Evolution is everything I hoped it would be. It’s accurate, it’s pretty — and it’s a major milestone on a road I’ve spent years of my life walking.

I’m tremendously grateful for Michael Shermer’s ongoing encouragement (and to those who support the Skeptics Society’s educational work with donations).

And I can’t wait — can’t wait! — to finally hold the first hardcover Junior Skeptic-based book in my hands.

(Stand by for details after Christmas, as we near the release of Evolution. And yes: stand by for news about further book projects later in 2010!)

Here Be Dragons

Since the beginning of the Skeptoid podcast, people had been asking me for a video version. Tempting indeed, but having been a college filmmaker and done my share of dabbling, I knew that a weekly video podcast would require far more than the limited time I have available for Skeptoid. So this idea stayed on the back burner for a while.

But I finally got fed up with the amount of uncritical praise and attention given to the garbage conspiracy films Loose Change and Zeitgeist on the Internet, and decided that it was time for a counterattack of reason. So I spent a few months of odd hours putting together my thoughts and writing my own garbage film for the Internet, which I called Here Be Dragons. (I wish I’d picked a different title, because that one’s so common, but heck, I was fresh out of creativity by that point.)

Here Be Dragons was conceived to be a 40 minute (classroom length) video introduction to critical thinking. It’s free of any content that would affect its appropriateness for any school. Most significantly, I wanted it to be absolutely free to everyone. I wrote a 5000 word script that was a distillation of Skeptoid’s general message.

One of the best assets that Skeptoid provides me is an incredible resource of thousands of enthusiastic skeptics eager to help out with any kind of skeptical outreach project. So I temporarily dropped a special announcement and call for help into my Skeptoid feed. I needed artwork, a composer, computer graphics artists, additional “man on the street” video footage, and still photography. Response was huge. I was overwhelmed. Talk about an embarrassment of riches: So many people wanted to help, who brought so much talent and energy to the table. I had to say “Thanks but no thanks” to 95% of everyone who threw their hat into the ring. It was like being a manager during a massive corporate layoff. But I was left with a team that I couldn’t be happier with.

I set aside a few thousand dollars and took two weeks off work. I bought a decent HDV video camera and an almost-good-enough wireless mic. I bought Final Cut Express, learned how badly it was crippled, and bought Final Cut Studio. I then spent two weeks of nonstop production: Driving around, setting up tripods, printing cue cards, replacing broken gear in panic mode, reshooting scenes that didn’t work, sneaking into my orthopod’s office on his day off, earning strange looks from people at the beach, calling in more favors than I can count, getting parking tickets, being chased away by airport security, forgetting meals, employing my whole family for all sorts of odd jobs, and generally enjoying the hell out of life.

Weeks of editing and scoring followed. A week of rendering, ripping, compressing, burning, and web site building followed that. And then, quite suddenly, at about two o’clock in the afternoon, I couldn’t find anything else to do. Here Be Dragons was done.

Like I do for all of my projects, I spend virtually no effort promoting or marketing them. I reason that if they’re good, it’s not necessary, they’ll sell themselves; and if they’re not good, marketing them would be a waste of energy. If my projects find success I want it to be because of their quality, not the quality of their marketing.

People started downloading it (it’s at HereBeDragonsMovie.com). They started making DVD’s. They made foreign language translations. They show it in schools. Two friends have donated huge amounts of time to handle technical issues and get it entered into film festivals. So far, so good.

The most fulfilling part of the experience is the number of teachers I’ve heard from who employ Here Be Dragons. I’ve heard from two different high schools who make it mandatory viewing for all students. I’ve lost count of the number of science and physics and critical thinking teachers who have written to tell me they show it in their class.

Where is Here Be Dragons going to go from here? I don’t know, but I’ll tell you what I’d like: I’d like for a proper documentary production company to look at it, find value in its message, give it a budget, and professionally remake it. Will this happen, or perhaps something completely different and unexpected? Only Heisenberg can tell.

Admittedly, this is a forum in which most, if not all, of the readers here are proud to call themselves “Skeptics”. I’m sure there’s even a few “Sceptics” as well.

I don’t carry the weight and vast knowledge that my esteemed blog colleagues do, I’m just a humble video production guy who’s trying to make his mark on the world in a positive way. As a matter of fact, it’s all I can do to write an entry every week that deserves to be on the same page as these folks. Working with them, reading their work and listening to the various podcasts is inspiring, and I’m lucky to be a part of this. I have a profound respect for each and every one of these Skeptologists! One of the common threads, that is very apparent, but worthy of note, is that they all share a similar intense desire to better the world through educating people about how to think critically, and skeptically.

It seems so easy on the face of it all doesn’t it? Educate people. I’ve written in the past about how I believe that TV is one avenue in which we can start to affect change in the world for the better. That’s my particular talent, and one that I wish to use to get the word out. But there are so many ways to go about it, and that’s what I’d love to start a discussion about: What different, entertaining and clever ways can we come up with to help gently educate people about the power of skepticism?

Listening to the news and hearing about the human condition is sometimes too much to bear. People stripping other people of their rights to marry, people being bilked out of hundreds, and even thousands of dollars of their hard earned money to pay for some ridiculous homeopathic medicine, or people wasting hours on searching for the evidence of alien crash sites, when all around them, the beauty of the real world and all it’s wonderful complexity surrounds.

So turn it off. Turn off the radio, put down that tabloid magazine and turn your thoughts to something constructive. I hate it when I hear people say, “But what can I do?” Well, no, I take that back, I don’t hate that, but it frustrates me. When many people say that, it’s not really a question at all is it?. It’s more of a little white flag that says, “I don’t wanna do nuthin!” But that was a question, white flag or no, and I’ve just made it your job to answer that question each time you hear it, and empower people to make change, in any amount, for the better! How? Be creative in your own way, doing the things that you do. I don’t care if you sell houses, are a greeter at Wal-Mart, a urine collector for drug tests or sell ice cream, find ways of doing what you do best… better and more influential by injecting some science, critical thinking and skepticism into it!

Here’s a thought. If you happen to really know a bit about one “hot topic” that we skeptics like to continually hit on the head, maybe you’re an expert, and you didn’t even know it! Okay, maybe you’re not, but maybe you have enough information at your disposal to create a pretty in-depth and informative talk. Go to the local junior college, or the library, heck, maybe a service organization, or even the local club would be interested in an “Eye Opening Discussion about ______!” Create a few visual aids, practice in front of a mirror on a riveting and dramatic story line for your opener, and then you’ve got yourself something to explore with a group. Start small, get good at it, and before you know it, you’ll be scheduling time off from the shop to go on your lecture circuit.

Open it up to people to talk to you, discuss they way they interpret the information. Then, slowly unfold the wisdom of the Skeptical way, Don’t bother even calling yourself a Skeptic, if you like, you are there to facilitate an “Engaging and entertaining discussion about the things that interest our lives.” Explain logical fallacies and show how they permeate pseudoscience. Hopefully you’ll remember them all better that I. Eventually, you’ll be able to walk in the door and say: I, Skeptic! And the roar of the applause will shave a few minutes off your introduction… But let’s not get too ahead of ourselves, here.

But do do this. Be true, honest and educated. When you don’t know something, be honest, when you do, be honest. Be the person that one can trust to provide information that’s real, and solid.

My point is that everyone can share their intelligence, it takes some work, sure, but think back to the time that you listened to someone speaking and you thought, “Yeah, I knew that, but I never really though about it that way… Very interesting” Well, I guarantee you, there is someone out there that would appreciate learning about your interests, the topics that we skeptics love to latch onto and how it’s come to relate to your job at the ice cream store.

Go forth! Be a Skeptic! And be proud!