Morning sickness

John McWhorter is a linguist who is known for his work on the origin of creole language. He is not known for any particular knowledge of science or in particular any knowledge of biology - which seems to be a prerequisite for acceptance of ID.
Unfortunately I suspect his level of knowledge and thinking about evolution is pretty much average compared to the rest of the population. The interview is useful to watch to get an idea how ID is so easily accepted by the general population.

Sad. I rather enjoyed McWhorter's book "The Power of Babel" when it first came out years ago. Despite the title, it was (as I recall) a rather riveting take on the evolution of language, and I think he was even on an episode of Bullshit...

But then I heard he worked for some conservative think tank... and now a Behe endorsement? So disappointing.

Correction... I see that it wasn't an endorsement of Behe, just a massive, epic fail...

I've been looking for a new diet plan, so I'm looking forward to viewing the video when I get home.

Well...the combination of ERV getting knocked up and Behe in the same post is enough to make me barf so congrats Abbie, you've discovered a new infectious disease vector. Go write a paper.

So you're saying Behe would rather be blown by a guy than abused by a woman? Insert your own punchline here.

"Ive been trying to debate Behe for several years now, and hes told the mediators of those proposed debates to fuck off. Yet Behe somehow managed to find the time to get deep-throated buy whats-his-face. How convenient!"

Your manner of speaking my have something to do with it. I'd normally shun interacting with those who make it too hard not to think of them as being vulgar. Aside from the hardcore faithful in any position, lowering the level of discourse will make you come across as arrogant to many in the general public.

Well, maybe you should shun on then.

Yes, Abbie is far too common. Her many improprieties will make it difficult to be accepted in the society. To be honest, dear chap, I would greatly prefer to have our position represented by a moneyed gentleman of leisure.

#6
airizarr

"Aside from the hardcore faithful in any position, lowering the level of discourse will make you come across as arrogant to many in the general public."

I do believe I have heard this argument before.

Where was that?

Oh yes, I remember, from every pretentious B.S. artist who found themselves rapidly being demonstrated to be completely wrong in an argument over the evolutionary origins of life on this planet since the commencement of the Oxford Debates of 1860.

I thing the gloves have been appropriately off on this issue for 149 years and calling Abbie vulgar is the equivalent of disputing expert testimony on the grounds that powerpoint demonstrations smack of black magic.

Grow up.

Honestly, though, I think McWhorter simply has some misconceptions and is in real need of polite clarification. My hope is that he asked for this to be taken down because someone did approach him and clear the misunderstanding.

I have several of his books, and I'm usually enthusiastic about recommending them. I'd be very sad to see him go all IDist.

Your manner of speaking my have something to do with it. I'd normally shun interacting with those who make it too hard not to think of them as being vulgar. Aside from the hardcore faithful in any position, lowering the level of discourse will make you come across as arrogant to many in the general public.

You mean it comes across as "arrogant" to *you*. Have you fucking watched any popular entertainment that wasn't aimed explicitly at kids at any point in the last two generations (or more)?

Your manner of speaking my have something to do with it. I'd normally shun interacting with those who make it too hard not to think of them as being vulgar.

Abbie, if I were you I would take this as a compliment. Thomas Paine was considered a very vulgar writer for his time also.

I remember seeing McWhorter on Penn and Teller's Bullshit! He came across as rather sensible on that show. It's not too surprising that he works for a right wing think tank (so does Penn Jillette, by the way).

But that interview is just downright shameful. I couldn't sit through the whole thing. After a few minutes of watching him unabashedly kiss Behe's ass and then make arguments against natural selection which revealed a very basic misconception of the theory, I'd had enough.

Jesus Aitch Christ ...

And I here I was suggesting we need more linguists on BH. (Apropos of nothing "BH" is the common name for a brassiere in Danish - short for Bosom Holder (brystholder).)

I still want to see Mark Liberman, Geoff Pullum and Arnold Zwicky, though. Victor Mair and John Wells would be nice too.

Now erv we expect more elegant language from you. Blowjob just seems to course can't you just say fellate instead. Also your didn't hold up to your high blagging standards, you left the most important question unanswered. Spit or swallow?

PS: I note the irony of a blowjob CAUSING "morning sickness."

On a more serious note I did manage to watch some of it and Behe came out with an interesting point near the end about what he intends to do with the rest of his career.
To paraphrase him he said that his intention is 'to categorize things into those designed and those non designed' (presumably he meant just biology).
I find that a particularly hazardous task.
If you are prepared to designate ANYTHING biological as the result of purposeful design then you are faced with a powerful designer who is orders of magnitude more intelligent than mankind. With such an entity it is impossible for mere humans to determine what is and is not designed - to it (or HIM) we are like ants walking on the rosetta stone.
ID proponents have no way of determining what is not purposefully designed because they don't know the purpose intended by their designer.

I would greatly prefer to have our position represented by a moneyed gentleman of leisure.

Moneyed gentlemen of leisure. Is there anything they CAN'T do?

If someone can supply the money, I can provide the leisurely gentlemen.

"Bonus: Ive been trying to debate Behe for several years now, and hes told the mediators of those proposed debates to fuck off. Yet Behe somehow managed to find the time to get deep-throated buy whats-his-face. How convenient!"

After seeing the type of grade school reasoning displayed here, do you seriously think Behe would even care to talk to you? Please! As likely as we are to see Ben Bernanke being drawn into a debate on the economy if requested by Joe the Plumber. Quite the circus it would be, but not very likely to happen. Take all the adulation you want out of it, whatever that's worth.

airizarr, the only reason that Beheehee won't debate Abbie is that she has already metaphorically handed him his ass on more than one occasion. Well that and he definitely didn't like having it handed to him by a young female student. As he made clear by choosing instead to turn his misogynistic attack dogs loose on her rather than responding to her actual criticisms.

After seeing the type of grade school reasoning blah blah blah blah blah blah

Obvious concern troll is obvious.

Hi Abigail,
As you know well, way too many people don't listen to arguments, but judge based on tone. I'm afraid that the tone of your post (more than just the puking part, but especially where you depicted Behe as having told mediators to @^%# off) is going to cost you more fence-sitters than you'll gain -- and they're really the people you want to reach, not the ones who already agree with you.
I wish you success.

oh and airizarr, lest I forget, unlike Joe the Plumber's knowledge of economics in comparison to Bernanke's in your example, Abbie has already shown that she is way more than Beheehee's equal when it comes to knowledge about evolution. Thus, in your example you have it the wrong way round, i.e. when discussing issues regarding evolution Beheehee is the equivalent of Joe the Plumber with Abbie being Ben Bernanke.

John,

I don't doubt Abbie could make a good argument, but my point is that you won't get someone as Behe to ever consider debating based on the tone of it. Even if he fears her or dislike her for other reasons, how many people like talking to someone if they feel they're going to get a diatribe out of them. It's the Bill O'Reilly style, and it's a turn off.

Personally, I don't think being interpreted as arrogant wouldn't be so much the problem, as it isn't always easy to avoid, but using words and descriptions that most in the general public would deem offensive will not win you many undecided. I think such a style can make her look common and frankly it'll make her appear as she has no business debating him. That's my 2cents.

airizarr, Abbie comes across fine during interview situations. I've heard her on 'The Infidel Guy' show a couple of times and she didn't curse or accuse people of giving out free blow-jobs, rather she made rational points based on scientific evidence. On the other hand, if you only knew her by her posts on here I would guess a conservative might be somewhat wary, particularly of her choice of metaphors!

airizarr, search out some of her debates, most are available here or on her old site ( http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/ ) then come back to me about her debating style. The only reason IDiotic clowns, and I use that term deliberately, like Beheehee won't debate Abbie has nothing to do with her style and everything to do with the fact that she wipes the floor with them on the facts and her knowledge. And horror of horrors, even worse, she is 'only' a young female student and thus the humiliated of being proven more than wrong even just once by such as Abbie was just too much for him. His response was to ignore her actual criticism of his work and let loose his misogynistic attack dogs on his site while refusing her the ability to respond to those attacks. A not uncommon practise in their world and one of the reasons she sees no need to be faux polite about or to him and his like on her own blog.

I'm afraid that the tone of your post is going to cost you more fence-sitters than you'll gain

That must be why Pharyngula is a teeny-tiny wasteland of a blog, with few readers and an itsy bitsy dribble of a comments section. It's got to be his tone, doncha know.

Moar bettr scolds plz.

The concern trolls are out in force! Everyone knows that if you want to court the fence-sitters, you can't use faint-inducing terms like 'blowjob'! Let's keep this PG-13, people, to keep the level of condescension appropriately high.

I guess Behaw has had his ass handed to him several times since Dover. He ought to be used to it by now.

BTW, "Spit or swallow?" is a thread winning question I think...

Airizarr, there is usually a big difference between how someone writes on a blog, and their public speaking. Doing a little homework, like listening to available interviews, would have informed you that that axiom applies to Abbie.

Clean up your language, pottymouth. It doesn't help your case.

Anon @31
Fuck off.

Clean up your language, pottymouth. It doesn't help your case.

Jesus fucking Christ you're a whiny little shit.

Man that sounded like a great blow job! And accordingly.....they do say the difference between love and like is a swallow

Did anybody hear the gulp?

Anon @31
Paraphrasing Mark Twain: "There's damn few words everyone understands and I intend to use all of them."

Language is meant to convey both meaning and emotion. Sometimes it is nuanced, sometimes it is fucking 'in your face'. Deal with it, don't swallow.

What would really surprise me would be the languyage concern trolls offering up a viable defense of Behe's B-S rather than a Po-Mo critique of ERV's choice of words.

This is the intranets, concern trolls, not a scholarly journal. Most importantly, it's also ERV's own site. If you don't like her plain, direct use of language in this context and you find yourself falling victim to the vapors, feel free to fuck off and take your "language police" nonsense with you.

Kthanx, bai

I would think Behe would be more comfortable with getting fellated by a guy than being shown up by a non-doc woman. He probably thinks that as long as he doesn't take a penis inside him, he's still masculine, but getting beaten by a woman--well, that just makes him a pussy. Like Eric Cartman in these two South Park episodes. Of course, I could also be completely wrong.

Re arizarr

Actually, it is doubtful that Prof. Behe would agree to debate anybody who was knowledgeable on the subject of evolutionary biology. In his first and last such encounter, he made the mistake of debating Prof. Ken Miller who proceeded to hand him his head on a platter.

John McWhorter is a linguist...

but not a very cunning one, apparently.

OK, I'm going, but somebody had to say it 8^).

Mal Adapted
Just so you know SOMEbody appreciated that cunning linguistic effort....

Oh, a linguist *facepalm*

Btw: it's seriously ridiculous how Abby gets smothered by the idiotic, cretinous concern trolls who feel their masculinity is threatened whenever a woman says "fuck".
Or "blowjob".
Or anything, really, because we all know wimminz should shut up and go back to the kitchen, like, now.

Somehow, I've never seen anyone accusing PZ Myers of being a "pottymouth" (OMFG WHAT IS THIS? KINDERGARTEN???), or telling him to "mind his tone". But I guess HE can swear however he wants.
He's got a penis, after all!

*SNARL*

It's amazing to me that people on this blog who are so scientifically smart can't understand the basic point of human relations that fair-minded people are often suspicious of people who resort to name-calling and vulgarity when making arguments because it often suggests a deep insecurity about the merits of their arguments and/or an intellectual immaturity that makes it harder for others to place much trust in their arguments.

They also don't seem to understand the elemental principle that it doesn't help one's cause to treat someone like McWhorter with such disrespect. However wrong his views about evolution may be, he's a respected scholar and author who is an atheist with no apparent axe to grind. One would think that the response to him would be to say, "we really need to do a better job in explaining evolution and persuading him" rather than to call him "whats-his-face" and say that he gave Behe a blow-job.

But no matter. I'm sure my post will be greeted with the usual round of rude and crude comments, only proving my point and making proponents of evolution only look worse.

No, Zed @ 42:

It's not insecurity of the merits of our arguments that makes us potty mouths. It's dealing with the overwhelming dishonesty, outright bullshit and complete stupidity of the other side.

Creationists like Behe insist on lying over and over, and refusing to acknowledge that his ideas aren't scientifically valid (though he'll continue to sell the books to the gullible creationist masses). Instead of producing evidence to support his claims, he insists others must first disprove his claims. Any person with limited knowledge of science knows this isn't how science works.

If people are turned off by rudeness, then they don't weigh reality based on reality but how something makes them feel better. The merits of one's argument, then, don't matter. Just the warm, snuggly feeling of how wonderful someone's conclusion is what they want.

You should be more concerned over the fact that Behe doesn't want to defend his ideas against scientists. He doesn't want peer review. He doesn't want to test his own brain farts. Wouldn't that tell you that Behe has a deep insecurity about the merits of his arguments?

Thanks, Christopher, for proving my point (although not in the way I predicted in my prior post).

Except for the occasional references to your opponents' "complete stupidity" and "brain farts," and the non-sequitur that "If people are turned off by rudeness, then they don't weigh reality based on reality but how something makes them feel better," your post was generally cogent and civilized. And because it was, it was PERSUASIVE. That's progress.

Christopher --

One more point. You say that for people who don't like rudeness "The merits of one's argument, then, don't matter. Just the warm, snuggly feeling of how wonderful someone's conclusion is what they want." But I think you have it backwards. I'd say that for people who spout rudeness and crudeness, the SUCCESS of their argument doesn't matter. Just the warm, snuggly feeling of how wonderful their conclusion is what they want.

@Zed 44

How did I prove your point? You stated that people who use vulgar or rude language are insecure about their points. My argument was correcting your bad assumption.

@Zed 45

The success of one's argument should never lie with the tone of the person presenting it, but the facts of the argument. But that's simply not how it is with science. Given that any science is a complex subject (evolution being entirely too complex for a simple explanation), expecting people to get off the fence with an argument or two is ridiculous. If they venture off to IDiot land because someone like ERV was vulgar, then they don't care about the merits of the ideas (and likely only think there are two ideas around).

What we need instead is good ol' fashioned education. We need teachers to spend less time trying to battle religion in the classroom and more time giving kids the skills and critical thinking capacities to explore the world through science.

And that just won't happen with arguments on the internet, now will it?

Zed,
Some people are very persuasive in quiet, respectful environments but I suspect they honed that 'quiet' skill through years of cursing and screaming in pubs and coffeehouses. The rudeness and crude language are often a reaction to the frustration of making the same points (often to the same people) over and over and getting Barney Franks' dining room table response in return.

The idea that what I'm arguing is logically correct against an opponent's illogical faith based crap does create a warm feeling just for making the argument and without respect to whether that argument will have any effect. I don't really care that I rarely alter a fool's opinion as much as I learn to form and frame cogent arguments and get better at that for those pub and coffeehouse brawls.

It's amazing to me that people on this blog who are so scientifically smart can't understand the basic point of human relations that fair-minded people

We're talking about CREATIONISTS here, genius.

"We're talking about CREATIONISTS here, genius."

You know, the vast majority of people out there aren't really creationists or evolutionists, they simply haven't spent much time thinking about the issue, and some (like McWhorter) might be interested in learning more and might tune into this blog to do that. Actually, that describes me fairly well. I suppose rudeness and vulgarity might work for awhile to scare away the weakhearted, but I suspect it does more harm in the long run.

It still amazes me that the people on this blog, who claim to be models of scientific rationality, seem to have never even looked at the scientific literature on human persuasion. (Hint: It doesn't suggest rudeness or coarse language.)

(Hint: It doesn't suggest rudeness or coarse language.)

[Citation and explanation of success of talk radio under this assumption needed]

Argumentum Ad Tonia :
People won't listen to you because you aren't submissive enough.

Tone Troll is boring.

Zed, go out there and apply that "scientific literature on human persuasion" while arguing evolution with creationists, IDists, and general illiterati. Do it a hundred times, documenting places and dates, then come back and lecture on intellectual immaturity, rudeness, and coarse language. It's sure to be illuminating for all of us.

@Zed

It's willfully ignorant jackasses like you that cause scientists to lose their temper and stop being nice.

Behee would never agree to debate Abbie, no matter how polite she asked. He knows he'd come off looking like the dumbass he is. Like he did in the Dover trial. Like he did debating Ken Miller.

And since the American public was so sensitive to vulgar language, the Hollywood film industry would be putting out Pollyanna remakes.

It's bad enough having the tone police trolling and ignoring the substance of the arguments, worse still is the nicey-nicey brigade pandering to them all the time.
Dolts like Zed disprove their own arguments as, nomatter how nicey-nicey they are, nobody sees them as other than dolts.

Hey Zed. Is that you, Mooneybaum?

"The concern trolls are out in force! Everyone knows that if you want to court the fence-sitters, you can't use faint-inducing terms like 'blowjob'! Let's keep this PG-13, people, to keep the level of condescension appropriately high."

Something I never really understood about the more conservative/religious among us - they seem to see no problem torturing people, no problem declaring whole groups of people 'un Ameriacn' and worthy of death,etc., yet are aghast at the use of profanity.

What backwards 'morals' and priorities these folk have.

It's funny reading all these comments from the "concern trolls" and the debate here about being vulgar(?). If this is really vulgar then the bar is set at an all-time low! Maybe I spent too much time around people who talk like sailors in my life but I was surprised to even see these complaints.

For what it's worth I started reading ERV a few months ago. If someone asked me why I love ERV it's because I get to read super nerdy articles about viruses, biology, etc. AND the parts between the science are written by someone who seems like a person I could "have a beer with" while talking about this stuff. keep up the good work!

Damn, Abbie! No more appearances on bhTV for you, too! Sean, Carl, and you? How about your own podcast? How about compiling Behe's interviews and trashing him by proxy? There just aren't enough reasonable, intelligent, articulate, dedicated, experienced, ballsy science broads anywhere within sight or hearing!