1. Comment #18600 by DerrickB on January 22, 2007 at 1:48 am

In case you have trouble following the links in the article above, below is a very important retraction. We rely on reason, evidence and honesty in our arguments against organised religion and its irrational claims. Willingness to be corrected by new facts is also crucial to the scientific method! Let's celebrate in this retraction - there are countless genuine opportunities to ridicule the fundamentalists!

Fact Checking 101
How Skeptic magazine was Duped
by an Environmental Activist Group

by Michael Shermer

In last week's eSkeptic , we published highlights from a press release issued by PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility), a Washington D.C.-based environmental watchdog group. That press release, dated December 28, 2006, was headlined:

HOW OLD IS THE GRAND CANYON? PARK SERVICE WON'T SAY
Orders to Cater to Creationists Makes National Park Agnostic on Geology

The first sentence of the release reads:

Washington, DC — Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees.

Unfortunately, in our eagerness to find additional examples of the inappropriate intrusion of religion in American public life (as if we actually needed more), we accepted this claim by PEER without calling the National Park Service (NPS) or the Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP) to check it. As a testimony to the quality of our readers, however, dozens immediately phoned both NPS and GCNP, only to discover that the claim is absolutely false. Callers were told that the Grand Canyon is millions of years old, that no one is being pressured from Bush administration appointees — or by anyone else — to withhold scientific information, and all were referred to a statement by David Barna, Chief of Public Affairs, National Park Service as to the park's official position. "Therefore, our interpretive talks, way-side exhibits, visitor center films, etc. use the following explanation for the age of the geologic features at Grand Canyon," the document explains.

If asked the age of the Grand Canyon, our rangers use the following answer: 'The principal consensus among geologists is that the Colorado River basin has developed in the past 40 million years and that the Grand Canyon itself is probably less than five to six million years old. The result of all this erosion is one of the most complete geologic columns on the planet.'

Understandably, many of our readers were outraged by both the duplicity of the claim and our failure to fact check it. One park ranger wrote us:

You're a day late and a dollar short on this one. As a national park ranger, I found most of PEER's findings to be bogus. So have others: http://parkrangerx.blogspot.com

A Grand Canyon park interpreter wrote:

This is incorrect. I have NEVER been told to present non-science based programs. In fact, I received "talking points" demanding that Grand Canyon employees present programs BASED ON SCIENCE and that we must use the scientific version supported by the National Science Foundation and the National Academy of Sciences. As an interpreter I have shared the "creation" story of the Hopi people and the Paiute people because it is culturally relative. I used these stories as a tool to introduce the scientific story. Be confident there are good people running government, too.

One of our readers directly challenged Jeff Ruch, the Executive Director of PEER:

When I challenged that PEER guy to show me some evidence and provided him evidence to the contrary, he didn't have much. I would say PEER did more than jump the gun. I'd say they are spreading misinformation.

Another Grand Canyon park interpreter offered this explanation:

Ruch's attempts to insinuate a conspiratorial link between the NPS and organized religion are misguided and founded in fervent anti-Christian opposition, not reason or the law. Ruch's anti-Judeo-Christian bias is evidence by his lack of opposition to GCA's selling of Native American creation myths. His misinformation campaign aims to tarnish the reputation of the NPS to leverage his position that creationism books should not be sold in the GCA bookstore. I've emailed a few of my contacts at GRCA, and so far, all deny any conspiracy and all freely give the canyon's age in education programs (as does all official GRCA print material). I'll post updates as information becomes available. Until then, don't believe everything you read.

The reference to the creationism book being sold in the Grand Canyon bookstore — Grand Canyon: A Different View by Tom Vail — is true. It is sold in the "inspiration" section of the bookstore, alongside other books of myth and spirituality. In any case, the story is an old one now, and completely irrelevant to the claim that NPS employees are withholding information about the age of the canyon, and/or are being pressured to do so by Bush administration appointees.

Embarrassed and angered by all of this, I promptly phoned Jeff Ruch myself and inquired what evidence he has to support this claim. He initially pointed to the creationism book and the fact that the NPS has failed to address numerous challenges to the sale of same in their bookstore. When I pointed out that this is irrelevant to the claim in the press release, he then reminded me of the biblical passages that have been posted at places along the rim of the canyon. Again, I admonished, this is not evidence for his central claim. We went round and round on the phone until I finally gave up and hung up, convinced that he simply made up the claim out of whole cloth.

Not wishing to simply call Ruch a liar, and allowing myself to calm down a bit, I emailed him and asked:

Can you tell us who in the Bush administration put pressure on park service employees? Can you name one person in the GCNP staff who says that they are not permitted to give the official estimate of the age of the canyon?

He responded:

1. I do not know — it is at the Director's level or above. We have been trying to find out for three years.
2. Julie Cart, Los Angeles Times.

I contacted Julie Cart at the Los Angeles Times, who was out of town on assignment, and got her editor, Frank Clifford, on the phone. Clifford knew all about the creationism book and the biblical passages on the rim of the canyon, but said that he had heard nothing about this new claim of Bush administration appointees silencing park service staff, and that if Julie knew of such a thing the Times would be most interested in following up with the story. I then reached Julie by email, who said that she too knew of no such silence on the part of park staffers regarding the age of the canyon.

Once again outraged and enraged , I emailed Ruch to ask him why he referenced Cart, who denied his central claim. He responded:

I referred you to Julie because of the response she got from the superintendent's office when she covered the issue earlier — not for any new claim.

Thanks a lot. I wasted several hours tracking down that false lead. Now at my wit's end with this guy, I point blank asked him if he made it all up. He responded:

The interpretive staff at GCNP we are working with do not want to be identified and have gone into deep underground as the atmosphere at the park is now somewhat volatile.

Well, it would have been nice (not to mention ethical) if he would have said so in the first place. (I have now wasted about 10 hours of research time on this instead of other projects.) The referencing of sources who wish to remain anonymous is quite common in journalism and, in fact, there are laws protecting whistleblowers . The fact that no such reference was made until I pointedly accused Ruch of flatout lying makes me, well, skeptical of this explanation. His final statement to me doesn't make me any less skeptical:

We are issuing an amended release today that

1. deletes reference to what interpretive staff can and cannot say and
2. features the NPS official statement that they provide geological information to the public.

Then why did PEER issue that statement in the first place? In my opinion, this is why:

PEER is an anti-Bush, anti-religion liberal activist watchdog group in search of demons to exorcise and dragons to slay. On one level, that's how the system works in a free society, and there are plenty of pro-Bush, pro-religion conservative activist watchdog groups who do the same thing on the other side. Maybe in a Hegelian process of thesis-antithesis-synthesis we find truth that way; at least at the level of talk radio. But journalistic standards and scholarly ethics still hold sway at all levels of discourse that matter, and to that end I believe we were duped by an activist group who at the very least exaggerated a claim and published it in order to gain notoriety for itself, or worse, simply made it up.

To that end I apologize to all of our readers for not fact checking this story before publishing it on eSkeptic and www.skeptic.com. Shame on us. But shame on you too, Mr. Ruch, and shame on PEER, for this egregious display of poor judgment and unethical behavior.

Michael Shermer
Publisher, Skeptic magazine
Executive Director, the Skeptics Society
mshermer@skeptic.com

Other Comments by DerrickB

2. Comment #18604 by magetoo on January 22, 2007 at 2:37 am

This is even a national security problem, since a nation that won't face and study reality can't defend itself.

I'm not sure whether it is hilarious or just plain scary that the good old "national security" has to be dragged out in defense of reality.

Call me naive, but I think plain curiosity and a desire to figure out how things really work should be enough.

Other Comments by magetoo

3. Comment #18610 by LookToWindward on January 22, 2007 at 3:11 am

It's a fact that all living organisms on earth are descended from a common ancestor, and a theory that this is possible due to a mechanism governed by natural selection.

Since it is only really the fact that creationists dispute, the theory never really comes into it. Even without a good theory to explain descent, the facts point to common ancestry, in a way so thoroughly confirmed as to be as likely to be disproved as the fact of the Copernican solar system.

I wonder if we shouldn't come up with a different word for common ancestry so that we're not using the same word for both fact and theory, and we can finally put that tedious canard to bed.

Other Comments by LookToWindward

4. Comment #18616 by Ole on January 22, 2007 at 4:28 am

Hm... maybe I should move to Iceland...?

Ole in Norway

Other Comments by Ole

5. Comment #18617 by Azven on January 22, 2007 at 4:51 am

When this page resized for me the last three countries were missing. Click on the graph to go to the web site where the original graph can be seen.

But in summary after Latvia (48% approx') there is
Cyprus (45% approx')
U.S. (40% approx')
Turkey (26% approx')

Obviously there's quite a drop from U.S to Turkey (40% to 25%) and this probably has more to do with general education in Turkey than a particular disbelief in evolution. However, I notice that there's only one Islamic country on the list and that's Turkey so maybe I'm wrong! I don't wish to insult our fellow EC cousin, so I would welcome comments from someone with greater knowledge of this country than me.

Having said that, the U.S. should be thoroughly ashamed that, with their hugh and well respected (and, mostly, free) educational system they should find themselves sandwiched between Cyprus and Turkey.

If I said to an American parent "You'd be better off sending your child to Latvia for an education" they would become quite defensive. I hope many Americans read these statistics.

As for Britain, I am suitably embarassed to find us sixth in the list, but note, optimistically, that 72% seems to be a higher figure than has been reported in some polls.

Other Comments by Azven

6. Comment #18619 by Russell Blackford on January 22, 2007 at 5:06 am

Am I misunderstanding something, or does this graph show that even in Iceland some 15 per cent of the population reject (or at least don't accept) a body of scientific theory that is about as well-corroborated as anything in science? In Germany, to take one important example, the figure is evidently over 30 per cent. It's as if a third of the German population still imagined that the Sun revolves around the Earth, or that heavier-than-air flight is impossible.

I know it's not as horrifying as the situation in the US, but it is still pretty bad. It seems we have a long way to go before the modern scientific worldview is generally accepted, even in the most enlightened countries. This is a little scary, no?

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

7. Comment #18621 by epeeist on January 22, 2007 at 5:10 am

Now I understand why the USA seems to be so keen on getting Turkey into the EU. They obviously want to push our statistics down to their level :-)

Other Comments by epeeist

8. Comment #18623 by Vadjong on January 22, 2007 at 5:26 am

Alternate suggestions for choice of wording are welcome.

For "national security" please insert "Rational security"

Other Comments by Vadjong

9. Comment #18628 by Ole on January 22, 2007 at 5:44 am

How was this survey conducted?

Here is another one (found on BBC) that states:
Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4648598.stm

Can that be true - why then is UK so "high" on the list above?

I can't really believe that there is a difference of almost 10% between Denmark and Norway in regards to question about evolution.


Ole

Other Comments by Ole

10. Comment #18629 by Azven on January 22, 2007 at 5:45 am

I wonder what the % figure for the Vatican is?

Other Comments by Azven

11. Comment #18631 by Azven on January 22, 2007 at 5:48 am

Also, China?

Some very nice fossils have been found in China of which the Chinese should be suitably proud. If knowlege of these fossils is well known through-out China (I don't know if this is true) then we might expect knowlege and 'belief' in evolution to be high.

Other Comments by Azven

12. Comment #18632 by SMART on January 22, 2007 at 5:50 am

Silly Humanist Cop (#8). We Canadians are off the scale above Iceland! Well, it would be nice to think so anyway. At least some of us are SMART (Sensible Minds Against Religious Teaching) www.smartsociety.org

Other Comments by SMART

13. Comment #18637 by voss on January 22, 2007 at 6:34 am

I don't know about poll, but I'm italian living in Italy: here don't teach anymore darwinism in school and high school, but teach the bible version.
ID'ers have a lot of space on TV and newspapers.
Science have just a singe show sometime once a week but usually once a month.
We have National geographic and discovery channel but on satellite only.
Scientific classes at university are empty.
It's a very sad situation.

Other Comments by voss

14. Comment #18641 by Pilot22A on January 22, 2007 at 7:21 am

People in the United States simply start out at a clear disadvantage when it comes to the Theory of Evolution.
As an example, when I would pose questions to my parents (otherwise kind and caring individuals) about the similarity of species (i.e., mammals) I would be given answers couched in Biblical teachings and other scripture.

If I persisted, I would be told either that I didn't need to know, or was on the path to apostasy.

This insane fixture that they had on religion was a great barrier to their intellect and sadly, didn't change in their lifetimes.

I am now in the twilight of my life, and it is with great satisfaction that I remember how I raised my children, to think for themselves and question EVERYTHING.

Other Comments by Pilot22A

15. Comment #18647 by Roy_H on January 22, 2007 at 7:44 am

Which country came out on top? The one which is not exactly famous for its wide diversity of native plant and animal species and by definition, the one with no fossils! Now you cannot say that about the U.S.A. can you?

Other Comments by Roy_H

16. Comment #18649 by kelphis on January 22, 2007 at 7:58 am

hey I live in america and after viewing this study that americans are only more rational than turkey i was wondering if its okay for me to go start living in a cave? I can still have fire and the wheel, right?

Other Comments by kelphis

17. Comment #18654 by scottishgeologist on January 22, 2007 at 8:14 am

Strange to see Estonia and the Czech Republic so far to the right on that graph - these countries are seriously atheistic (so I am told)

Maybe its the expression '"belief" in evolution' that put them wrong. Science is about evidence not belief.

Remember TH Huxleys famous line "the tragedy of science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis with an ugly fact"

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

18. Comment #18655 by Dogbreath on January 22, 2007 at 8:20 am

I'm somewhat wary of data from single point surveys with no clear reference to methodology of data collection. It's not that I don't think this data is accurate, but that I have no way of knowing.

gallup.com has very powerful data sets over time on wide areas of religious belief (unfortunately most of it US-based) that shows, at least over the last 4 years, religious belief, church attendance, whether religion is seen as a force for good or bad etc. is largely unchanged. These are the needles we need to see move if all the work of Dawkins, Harris et al is not to be in vain.

Of interest at Gallup is data from their world poll, and specifically their muslim poll, that shows the strength of religious belief particularly in so-called Muslim countries. The most negative attitudes towards the concept of western democracy or civilization (however they are described and perceived) are held by the inhabitants of Saudi Arabia, a country that GWB courts and favors as a staunch ally!!!

Other Comments by Dogbreath

19. Comment #18665 by antialiasis on January 22, 2007 at 9:27 am

YEAH BABY! If there was ever a time I felt patriotic, it's now. Iceland for the win. *waves flag with a dumb grin*

In all seriousness, though, it is still pretty worrying that even over here people who reject evolution apparently constitute 15% of the population. :/

Other Comments by antialiasis

20. Comment #18667 by Lionel A on January 22, 2007 at 9:29 am

I began this some hours ago and was interrupted so there have been a number of posts on this topic in the interim but I will not address any of those here.

That films containing scientific fact should be banned from some IMAX theatres is an outrage against the human rights of those who would find such films informative and inspirational.

Those religious bigots who forced this action are behaving in a reprehensible manner and show themselves as the clay-footed, small-minded creatures that they are. It demonstrates that they are worried that such films will undermine the authority of their gods which in turn indicates the shakiness of their beliefs and their dishonesty by knowing that their beliefs are anchored on shaky foundations. These individuals should be thoroughly ashamed of their behaviour in a supposed free society.

Or perhaps many of the above cannot help themselves believe otherwise for they do not have the skills to do so. Any who believe that evolution is still theory are just plain ignorant, this ignorance of course has poor literacy as one prop. A literate, questioning population can of course be a problem for those who wish to erect a totalitarian government. I wonder if studies have been done which show a correlation between levels of literacy and of blind faith?

I have a hunch that, some notable Islamic terrorists excepted, Islamic teaching has such a powerful hold because of the poor literacy rate of populations in Islamic countries in general. Indeed with many, literacy could be restricted to the holy books and/or the teachings of the imams.

This could also be true, to a lesser extent, in the 'Bible Belt' of the US where predators such as Haggard (for that is how they could be viewed e.g. in venality) rely upon the fact that few amongst their congregation will have sufficient literacy, or the necessary stamina, to read all of the Bible, including the nasty or contradictory bits. There are doubtless others in these congregations who are literate but have become taken over by cognitive dissonance. Dissonance perhaps aided by mind altering substances whether deliberately administered or created by mass hysteria.

Those who can read should be pointed to such useful works as 'Chemistry and Life: an Introduction to General, Organic, and Biological Chemistry' by John W. Hill, Stuart J. Baum and Dorothy M. Feigl which would provided the conceptual underpinning to be able to fully appreciate the messages of Darwin, Dawkins and Dennett etc. By this means those who consider a two century, and more old book, as being sufficient to provide a true understanding of how we are should be nudged into thinking otherwise.

Other Comments by Lionel A

21. Comment #18668 by Martha on January 22, 2007 at 9:29 am

Quote= R J Eskow, The Huffington Post:

"How will their children - and ours - become the great scientists, doctors, and engineers of tomorrow?"

Their children - and ours??? Whatever is that supposed to mean? If, for example, my neighbours choose to indoctrinate their children in a particular way, that doesn't automatically mean that MY children are going to be enculturated/conditioned in the same way. Certainly not!

Other Comments by Martha

22. Comment #18671 by Lionel A on January 22, 2007 at 9:44 am

SMART and #18632

Brilliant link to smartsociety where there is a must visit link to a spoof religious site.

Thanks for that.

Other Comments by Lionel A

23. Comment #18675 by fatduck on January 22, 2007 at 10:05 am

http://img166.imageshack.us/my.php?image=evolutionvsgodne3.jpg

This is from an article called "The Secular Revolution of the West - It's Passed America By--So Far"

This one shows the correlation that we all probably assumed from the first graph.

Other Comments by fatduck

24. Comment #18676 by Lionel A on January 22, 2007 at 10:17 am

fatduck and #18675
That the USA is below Spain is telling, unless a very unrepresentative sample was taken on each, considering Spain's long history of strong Catholicism.

Other Comments by Lionel A

25. Comment #18678 by Dogbreath on January 22, 2007 at 11:06 am

fatduck, do we know from this graph whether the items scored were mutually exclusive? In other words, whether you could score "yes" to "absolutely believe in a God" and "yes" to "having a correct knowledge on evolution?"

Knowing this would give a very different interpretation of the results.

Other Comments by Dogbreath

26. Comment #18683 by Nazgul on January 22, 2007 at 11:53 am

Hey... hey... Hey!!!! Way up here.. hey!!! Second biggest country in the world!!!(area wise) Hey... this is Canada... Why are we not on the list? My guess is that we would be in the 60% area.

Other Comments by Nazgul

27. Comment #18685 by Pantore on January 22, 2007 at 11:58 am

Maybe someone posted this episode of Southpark already but I do it anyway.

http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=2420206194022266406&q=southpark+duration%3Along
Lol

Other Comments by Pantore

28. Comment #18686 by gersheimer on January 22, 2007 at 12:11 pm

I am from the Czech Republic. Our country really is generally non-religious (only 25-30% of the population refer to themselves as religious, those are mostly Catholics or moderate Protestants similar to Unitarians) and the creationist propaganda was totally unheard of here until some four, five years ago. I am only 26 so I remember having been taught the basics of evolution in 7th grade at the elementary school and then, to greater detail, again at the secondary school. This hasn´t changed, I suppose. So no one should put evolution in doubt - but I think I understand the situation. I presume that the respondents have been, in many cases, caught by surprise with the question and some of them gave erratic responses that were counted as a disagreement. I remember one similar poll before the fall of Communism when random people at the streets of Prague were asked whether Sun revolves around the Earth or vice versa - and were insisted on immediate reply. A whopping 30% gave the wrong answer...

Other Comments by gersheimer

29. Comment #18705 by cerad on January 22, 2007 at 2:43 pm

If the world would just stop giving the United States so many Nobel prizes every year then maybe we would start to understand just how backwards we are.

Other Comments by cerad

30. Comment #18728 by kcjerith on January 22, 2007 at 4:52 pm

Penn made an intresting point on Bill maher a few months ago. he said (I am paraphrasing) that it doesn't matter what the majority of the population thinks, who cares if they believe or don't. What is improtant is that all of the top biologist, geologist...etc believe in evolution. I am not sure I agree with Penn assesment, but he makes a valid point. All most all (over 99%) of US scincetist believe in evoultion, so who cares what grandma done the street thinks? intresting point. Of course I can think of a few resaons why it does matter, since grandma gets to vote she can control funing. There are other resaons why this should be upsetting, but I am not sure I would push the panic button yet

Other Comments by kcjerith

31. Comment #18739 by John Phillips on January 22, 2007 at 5:38 pm

Asven: Turkey was probably included partly for being the only truly secularly governed muslim country and for straddling Europe and the East as well as having applied to join the EU. However, and this has been mentioned previously on this site, in Turkey the creationists are in control using much the same material that the US creationists/IDiots use. In fact, much of their material is copied piece meal from their US counterparts. There is a group of Turkish educationists and scientist campaigning against the teaching of creationism/ID but it is an uphill struggle.

Other Comments by John Phillips

32. Comment #18749 by kcjerith on January 22, 2007 at 6:40 pm

Sorry about spelling in last post, am a bit tired.

Other Comments by kcjerith

33. Comment #18760 by tea on January 22, 2007 at 7:58 pm

I find it absolutely SHOCKING that anyone but Americans "disbelieve" in evolution.

Other Comments by tea

34. Comment #18764 by sir_russ on January 22, 2007 at 9:46 pm

In post 22. Comment #18668, Martha said,

Quote= R J Eskow, The Huffington Post:

"How will their children - and ours - become the great scientists, doctors, and engineers of tomorrow?"

Their children - and ours??? Whatever is that supposed to mean? If, for example, my neighbours choose to indoctrinate their children in a particular way, that doesn't automatically mean that MY children are going to be enculturated/conditioned in the same way. Certainly not!

Martha, I hope you live in a place where reason reigns supreme. I unfortunately do not.

I live in Michigan, USA where our state legislature until this month was lead by true Bush-clone right wing fundamentalist Christian zealot Republicans. Many of them were the spawn of Liberty University, Bob Jones University, Phillip Johnson and Moral Majority anti-science, anti-intellectual traditions. Over the last few years, they have repeatedly attempted to pass legislation that would allow intelligent design creationism to be introduced in public science classrooms. Failing that, their attempts went into trying to enact "teach the controversy" legislation to legally require public school science teachers to discredit evolution and global warming.

While the specific legislators have changed, the combined heavily-moneyed corrupting influences of Christianity and the American Petroleum Institute - both dropping billions to purchase political influence - have not. As such, we have no guarantees that the new crop of lawmakers will be any less easily bought than the last one. These two groups will do whatever it takes to create a public as ignorant as possible, they both want to target public school science students, and both will pay handsomely to buy political sway over curricula as needed.

Most of the parents of public school students in the USA do not understand how important building a good base of scientifically literate citizens is to their own children's future and clearly this also applies to many with the authority to make law.

When most parents are too ignorant of science to speak up in support of good science education for their children - indeed, far too ignorant to model an appreciation of the sciences to their children, and when those elected actually yearn so earnestly for a return to the Dark Ages that they will try to legislate its seeds into reality, one has to ask how we can realistically envision our public school science students not continuing to be further and further outdistanced by the rest of the developed world.

Parents in a modern culture should be able to expect that the issues critical to their children's futures are being adequately addressed in their public schools. Neither the Christianity Industry nor the oil industry should ever be permitted to influence educational content, but legislators here, as well as elsewhere around this country, have demonstrated an immoral willingness to neglect the needs of the students in the short term, and the needs of the society in the long term, if the price is right.

Martha, I hope the situation is better where you are.

Other Comments by sir_russ

35. Comment #19082 by diquea on January 24, 2007 at 5:38 pm

I'm with the guy who said, isn't 15% still too much? As soon as I get my degree, I'm out of this country. I really cannot handle this farce, this sideshow of a government; this regressive society.

Other Comments by diquea

36. Comment #19278 by linck on January 26, 2007 at 4:31 am

I agree with Russel Blackford that every % below 100 is a shame. That Germans only score at 70% is really lousy. I am ashamed for my countrymen.

But interestingly the graphs are pretty close to the PISA scores (a test that's run among kids to see how much they learned in school).
And there also the Scandinavian countries are in first place.
In case you wonder: 3-4 years ago Germany was one of the lousiest among the industrial nations and they are now trying frevently to do something about it.

I guess it has less to do with religion than with education. With a decent education ones mind is broadend enough to except explanation more complicated than "God did it".

Other Comments by linck