It was only a few years ago that there was a handful of channels on the TV and most of what you watched was reported in clear, concise ways after doing the due diligence of real research. Without a doubt there where a couple of snafu's along the way but nothing that would be considered serious.

What we are now facing is an endless sea of channels all trying to find content. And let's be honest, when you view some of these channels the quality of the content is of little interest. It's also become obvious that the "channel owners" have little regard for what is actually being shown or the truthfulness of the programs. They need one thing. Filled air time; and the all important advertizing dollar.

A very good example of this is John Edwards. Time again he is proved to be basically a fraud, he disappears for a sabbatical, re-invents himself and is back on again.

There is another facet that has also fuelled this explosion of questionable programming. Camcorders (that can produce TV quality) and editing stations are now relatively inexpensive. What used to cost $200k for dual cameras + editing station can now be achieved for about $15k to $25k. So what I believe we are also seeing is the advent of production companies that have no real formal training in the ethics of what they are doing.

This is especially true (where the cost is a video cam plugged into the computer and some $25 video editing software) on places like YouTube.

Lets go back to TV and one of my favorite examples. This is a show that has good production value, is well acted out, for the unknowing looks like they are using real scientific equipment and a great editing technique. Ghost Hunters (and to a lesser extent the UFO show).

The problem we are now seeing is that people tune in to shows like that and believe what they are seeing. There is not a single Ghost Hunters episode where the conclusion was: Yes, we have evidence that will stand up to scientific inquiry.

Are these people gullible? Sadly the answer is yes. Let us not forget that watchers of TV have been obsessed by characters on Soap operas and have lost the ability to differentiate between the actor and the character.

Jenny McCarthy is a classic case. Oprah Winfrey sadly has given her time to spread the non-sense about autism and vaccinations (there is no proof at all that vaccinations have and can cause autism). Being a proven bad journalist and only a talk show host sadly many people watch her show and do not seem to understand that it is a show "for entertainment purposes only". The format of the show is designed to make it look like a real journalistic show with vetted guests that have researched data to pass on.

Let us look at vaccinations. Jenny M never lived in a pre-vaccination world. She has no clue at all at what diseases like polio, meningitis 'C', diphtheria well the list goes on. We no longer need to vaccinate against smallpox. Why? Because vaccinations wiped the disease out.

I have two friends in the UK, one suffered from polio and one from meningitis. (Late 50's before vaccines where available). Both these people have suffered their entire lives. Today with modern vaccines they would have been saved. Do people like Jenny McCarthy really want these diseases to make a fully fledged comeback?

So let us make an assumption. Vaccinations might cause autism. The debate should / would be, what is more important? The slim chance that autism develops or the return of proven killer diseases that made getting through childhood a real gamble. Make up your own mind.

(And before you ask. yes the picture to the right is of that scientifically trained, biological researcher Jenny McCarthy. As you can see by her name tag she does have all the credentials for the stuffy world of research.)

Are you still with me?

What we are seeing more and more on the internet is the classical, "I need to make a point therefore I will outright lie about it and make it look real" or "I need a certain conclusion therefore I'll just use the bits that prove it and ignore all the evidence against it". We are seeing this explosion across many fronts. This has classically been used by Creationists / Intelligent design, UFO exploiters, mediums and a growing group of "conspiracy theory writers".

A small visit to YouTube will offer you a prolific number of incredibly badly made videos that supposedly prove "God exists" or "Intelligent Design Proven" and what is really worrying are the numbers of people who seem to be watching these videos and leaving positive comments.

There is however one video (that I stumbled on) that has compelling information, this video has remarkable animation and introduces the now famous term "irreducible complexity" that was introduced by biochemist Michael Behe in his 1996.

But this was a classic case of wanting a conclusion and finding "proof". Just because something in the natural world (in this case the simple cell with an incredibly complex swimming method) is not necessarily understood by today's scientists does not mean that it is therefore created by "Intelligent Design".

There is a far simpler explanation. We just don't understand it yet and it does not in any way disprove Evolution, but that's not conclusion they needed. To a layman (who's willing to take what hears as is) it's good convincing stuff.

It would take a pinball wizard (someone who's death, dumb and blind) not to conclude that "Intelligent Design" was of course the method used to extract the religious aspects out of the equation and try to force this "Intelligent Design" through the school systems. Giving them a subliminal method for talking about God.

But wait there's more.

Do you find it strange that the Intelligent Design people only look at the one God principle of this? Intelligent Design does not mean there has to be a God that created all life on this earth. There are in fact two possibilities.

1/ A mystical being who lives in space and time, can create matter at a whim. Is invisible to all human kind. And has a warped sense of humor by not only creating life but also all diseases that plague humanity. Has a lot of problems with structural engineering and thought earth quakes should be good for a giggle or two.

Or

2/ Aliens with an IQ bordering on 1000 who decided that our planet would be a good place to setup a scientific experiment. (This assumes they have mastered travelling the vast distances of space).

Just because we don't yet understand the principles that created life in the first place does not mean anymore than, we don't yet know.