Evolution is a law, and not a theory.

From something Clive Thompson wrote in Wired this month: an article in which he suggests that we stop calling The Theory of Evolution a "theory," and instead star referring to it as a law.

It's an interesting piece, and something relevant to all of us in the communications business. I remember seeing (name-drop alert!) Bill Clinton speak this summer, and he related a few very funny but very pointed examples of how the Republicans are "better branders" than the Democrats: they are certainly more aggressive, but also seem to have a better understanding of the simple truth the that success of any piece of communications, or language, rests in how it's received and not in how it's presented. If you want your message to be understood, it's better to be "wrong" but clear to a large number of people than "right" but clear to a smaller number of people. This is the reason that "incorrect" words become a part of our generally-accepted lexicon: "impact," for instance, is not a verb, but everyone uses it as one now. It's reached a tipping point, and we can't pretend not to understand it anymore.

So back to evolution: calling it a "theory," which, in the scientific sense is technically accurate, makes it a lot easier for Creationists to attack it. A law - like the Law of Gravity, as Thompson points out, something that has been proven - only gets called a law when there is a 100% belief in it. Scientists, especially as a group, are cautious and precise by nature - thankfully! - and therefore will only refer to something that they are 99% certain about as a "theory," as something else may come along and disprove it.

Which is great ammunition for all of those Intelligent Designers and Creationists, no? Thompson makes the excellent point that the culture wars are fundamentally about language and communication. Call it the "Theory of Evolution," and while that's technically accurate, it's less "true" in that people view a theory as something unproven - which this isn't. There is more evidence and support for evolution than there is for any other explanation as to how we got to where we are today. Call it the"law of evolution," even though it isn't, and you're closer to how the scientific community feels about it.

That being said, the comments section following Thompson's article illustrate this perfectly. Some asshat takes Thompson to task for his use of the term "law," and wants it to be called a "hypothesis" of evolution., instead, totally missing the point of the article. Sigh. Call that the theory of idiocy, I guess.

Facebook equals Crack Cocaine. But much, much worse.

You've all heard about Facebook, the latest and greatest social networking site. You may not know how incredibly popular it is in Canada - more so than anywhere else in the world, actually, even though it started in the US and was unavailable to a lot of Canadian schools (school networks being the only way to join Facebook until last fall). What is it about Facebook in particular that seems to be resonating so strongly with Canadians? My guess is that we like community building tools more than others and that we appreciate the relative Spartan-ness of it as well: it's very simple to connect to and keep up to date with everyone in your network using Facebook, more so than with any other social networking site.

All that being said, we're now using it at Youthography for everything from our own group, to housing a promotion we're doing called Rockstar Hotel, to our own personal pages.

Whether or not it lasts remains to be seen: after all, it wasn't too long ago that Friendster was occupying the same space for many of us, and it's simply not as popular with young Canadians as it once was. We've been speaking forever - or, at least, for a few years, about the blurring between our off-and-0n-line lives, about the increasing connection between personal lives and work, and about the breaking down of barriers that used to keep different parts of our lives separate from each other. Facebook is just the next step forward: a single place, online, that lets you connect to all of the things that matter to you.

For Youthography's official perspective, check out our latest newsletter. The numbers are amazing. And it's only a matter of time before someone makes the owners of this thing an offer they can't refuse: as it stands, there are rumours that it's bringing in $50 million a month in revenue right now (through sponsored groups and other forms of marketing) and that they have already refused an offer for three quarters of a billion dollars. Which may be the most amazing number of them all.

In Her Language

If you're one of the few who haven't seen this, here's Amanada Baggs' film "In My Language". Ms. Baggs is autistic, and has made a short film (with the help of a text-to-speech program that makes her sound like a gentler version of the Radiohead song "Fitter, Happier") about her "language," as it were. This is amazing.



I traffic in language for a living: not just in the job that I do, but basic communication built around words, and around speaking, especially, is how I live my life. I need to be able to speak to people; I need to be able to make jokes; sometimes I just need to be heard and understood. But I've also had thoughts around where I could and could not live or work, for instance, based on my facility with language and I remember meeting a great looking girl, once, who my sister thought I should ask out, and thinking that it would never work, because she didn't speak English too well and would therefore never get me. Oh, as if that would have been the greatest of our problems. But I don't feel good about myself - I don't feel like I can be myself, even, without language, without a commonality of language that connects me to other people.

So what if you "speak" - see, even that word seems wrong - in a language that no one else really understands? This video is - in spite of the filmaker's declaration that it isn't - a window into the way that the autistic mind works (and there is real value in that). But more to the point, it's an argument for communication, an argument against specificity in the definition of personal and inter-personal cognitive connections, and an indication that there is just so much, so much of everything, in other people but we're limitied in our own abilites to see that.

As the director says: "The first part is in my "native language," and then the second part provides a translation, or at least an explanation. This is not a look-at-the-autie gawking freakshow as much as it is a statement about what gets considered thought, intelligence, personhood, language, and communication, and what does not."