…and this is a 
The swiftboating of Eric Pianka
Category: Politics • Science
Posted on: April 4, 2006 8:48 AM, by PZ Myers
Pianka speaks out. Nick Matzke has a good post on Pianka at the Thumb, addressing the smear campaign against him*. He links to an interview with the good Dr—what he's saying is simple sense, common in the biological community, and he's not endorsing mass murder…he's talking about conservation and planning ahead. Mims is a "crazy kook" who distorted the story and turned it into screaming match.
Get used to it. This is part of the right-wing strategy to attack the academy: when scientists honestly state bad news (and there is much bad news, and it's growing), they are going to be rabidly accused of all kinds of outrageous crimes. It's the new McCarthyism. The majority of us do not support short-sighted policy, we don't endorse jingoism, we are going to urge people to think before acting, we are going to predict the consequences of bad policy, and we are generally going to be critical of demagogues and fools…and that is being treated as a crime.
*Quite unlike the situation with Paul Mirecki; I can't help but interpret this to mean you're going to be left twisting in the wind if the right-wing mobs try to lynch you, and you admit you're godless.
Comments
New McCarthyism? If we're not careful, it'll be a new "Cultural Revolution"!
Posted by: Mr. Upright | April 4, 2006 8:58 AM
Any idea if the swift-boating of Pinaka was planned beyond the vindictive mind of WAD? The same PR firm that did in Kerry's candidacy has been hired by the DI. Might Dembski be following part of a coordinated campaign?
Posted by: Tom Ames | April 4, 2006 9:00 AM
Certainly it's being treated as a crime by the demagogues and fools. It was ever thus.
Posted by: Corkscrew | April 4, 2006 9:01 AM
I am not godless and I will defend you to the upmost!
Posted by: That Girl | April 4, 2006 9:09 AM
the interview mentions an unnamed "rival scientist" to Pinaka. Please tell me they don't mean Dembski? Cuz that would play really well into the image of science as cranks flinging poop.
Posted by: mathpants | April 4, 2006 9:11 AM
I think he was referring to Mims.
Posted by: PZ Myers | April 4, 2006 9:15 AM
Jingoism. It's what for breakfast.
I'd walk a mile for a Jingo.
Jingoism will make your teeth whiter and your breath fresher.
You know where to send the check.
Posted by: wamba | April 4, 2006 9:20 AM
I wonder why, with each passing day, I wish I was Vulcan ...
Posted by: BlueIndependent | April 4, 2006 9:20 AM
While I don't agree with Pinaka's analysis of the ecological problems we face (it's bad, but it's not that bad quite yet, IMO), it is no crime to be a Cassandra either. I hope Dembski's descent into jingoism is a cautionary tale to others in academia to not let your own personal vendettas get the better of you online, because the internet never forgets.
Posted by: David Wilford | April 4, 2006 9:20 AM
That's it, BlueIndependent. Come over to the green side.
Posted by: Caledonian | April 4, 2006 9:26 AM
It's pretty easy for Pianka to deny what he said once the heat was on. I've observed comments in this blog and others from students of Pianka who agree that he has long stated that he looks forward with satisfaction to the reduction of the human race by 90% via disease.
We'll probably never know the truth of how he said what he said, now that the issue has been co-opted by the haters on both sides. "Christians are radical anti-science nutjobs!" "Atheists are a danger to humanity and worship science at the expense of morals!" Gah.
While I in no way believe that Pianka is advocating terrorism or any such ridiculous action, I also think the idea that there is a conspiracy out there to "get" him equally ridiculous.
Posted by: Elizabeth | April 4, 2006 9:39 AM
I wonder why, with each passing day, I wish I was Vulcan ...
I think you're in the wrong thread. The one you are looking for is the thread about "GeekProm".
You will not only be welcomed, but cheered, when you waltz in wearing a Starfleet uniform.
Posted by: Praedor Atrebates | April 4, 2006 9:39 AM
Elizabeth:
I'm sincerely curious. Do you think that the Swift-boat campaign against Kerry was a conspiracy to "get" him? If not, why not?
Also, do you find it odd that the DI has hired the same PR firm as supported the "Swift-boat vets"? Do you think it's out of the realm of the reasonable to wonder if the same forces that directed the PR campaign against Kerry might be at work here?
Posted by: Tom Ames | April 4, 2006 9:45 AM
It's pretty easy for Pianka to deny what he said once the heat was on. I've observed comments in this blog and others from students of Pianka who agree that he has long stated that he looks forward with satisfaction to the reduction of the human race by 90% via disease.
We'll probably never know the truth of how he said what he said, now that the issue has been co-opted by the haters on both sides. "Christians are radical anti-science nutjobs!" "Atheists are a danger to humanity and worship science at the expense of morals!" Gah.
While I in no way believe that Pianka is advocating terrorism or any such ridiculous action, I also think the idea that there is a conspiracy out there to "get" him equally ridiculous.
Not a conspiracy, but this issue is entirely consistent with the distortions and lies coming from right wing creationist sources.
This attack on Pianka is entirely indefensible. And swift-boating is entirely accurate.
Posted by: roger tang | April 4, 2006 9:46 AM
Umm...feeling some personal satisfaction at the thought of an inevitable population decline (due to disease, famine, whatever) because of the harm we as a species are doing to our home is NOT the same as advocating same.
I welcome a culling for the same reasons but have no desire to see any particular people die. It is a general, theoretical feeling of satisfaction. We as a species getting our comeuppance due to your thoughtless activities against the natural world. Such an onslaught can ONLY come to ill, not only for humans, but for far too many innocent other species as well (the collatoral damage).
I enjoyed the fall of the Soviet Union even though on the short term it caused great harm and distress to millions in the crumbling union. I'm sorry for them individually but quite happy with the general fall nonetheless.
I also fully realize that a human species fall could well include ME. So be it. That doesn't mean I don't, in general, get a feeling of satisfaction from the idea of schadenfreude: humans getting their broad just deserts for thoughtlessness, greed, profligacy, and selfishness. Totally different from advocating actively bringing about such a result, which Pianka is accused (falsely) of.
It is objective fact that the environment would do EXTREMELY well should humans fall out of it. There's a silver lining to all storm clouds.
Posted by: Praedor Atrebates | April 4, 2006 9:48 AM
While I in no way believe that Pianka is advocating terrorism or any such ridiculous action, I also think the idea that there is a conspiracy out there to "get" him equally ridiculous.
Hmm. Well then, how do you explain the death threats received by Pianka and members of the Texas Academy of Sciences? Perhaps it's just a tornado in a junkyard, randomly combining internet bits until they coalesce as vicious hate-filled e-mails?
Posted by: wamba | April 4, 2006 9:51 AM
I've met Pianka several times, at herpetology meetings and seminars etc., and he's a hard-core field biologist with a very dark, Abbeyesque sense of humor. I can picture the affectation of evil gleeful satisfaction, but please. It's the attack of the irony-immune.
Posted by: CCP | April 4, 2006 10:01 AM
I think it doesn't take a conspiracy for nutjobs to send death threats; lots of people can read something and have the same reaction without being told what to do. I should also add that there has been no proof, to my knowledge, that the death threats exist.
Posted by: Elizabeth | April 4, 2006 10:11 AM
PZ, have you read the comments from Pianka's supporters? It is obvious that they are in favor of the deaths of several billion people, and view it as a good thing. Even you don't seem to understand that it would be a bad thing. And yet, you seem to think that people misunderstand. What's up with that?
Posted by: Seth Manapio | April 4, 2006 10:13 AM
PZ, have you read the comments from Pianka's supporters? It is obvious that they are in favor of the deaths of several billion people, and view it as a good thing.
Actually, it might be more obvious that you need some help in reading comprehension; they say no such thing.
Reducing world population from six billion to two billion does NOT mean killing four billion immediately. You do realize that people die eventually? And that reduction doesn't have to happen at once?
Posted by: roger tang | April 4, 2006 10:17 AM
I'd prefer not to get into the issue of the Swift Boat controversy. My father is a Vietnam vet (3 tours) active in the vet community, I'm originally from Massachusetts, and I loathe Kerry and his photo-op veteran bullshit as much as I loathe Bush and his apocalyptic stupidity. Politics is always about someone trying to get dirt on someone else - I'm not sure why "swift-boating" (whatever that means) should be considered different from any other day of shenanigans in Washington.
I don't even understand what it has to do with the matter at hand. Pianka may or may not (historical statements from his students seem to indicate that he in fact has used similar language in the past) have said he actively anticipates the wiping out of 90% of humanity, and that he supports China's one-child policy. I don't see any conspiracy in finding that offensive and undeserving of scientific honor.
I certainly, as I said earlier, don't understand why this has become an "OH NOES! CHRISTIANS ARE TEH EVIL!" discussion.
Here's my POV, if it's not clear already:
1) Whether overpopulation exists or is a problem is certainly a reasonable matter of discussion.
2) As is the discussion of what mechanisms might come into play to rectify perceived overpopulation.
3) Being pro-wipeout is not relevant or appropriate to the scientific discussion above.
4) Being pro-human-rights-violations is not relevant or appropriate to the scientific discussion above.
5) It is appalling to honor someone who has such disdain for humanity as a whole, as well as individual rights.
6) Both sides claiming that the others are out to "get" them is unfounded hysteria.
Posted by: Elizabeth | April 4, 2006 10:26 AM
Seth,
Who are these supporters? I have seen several comments on this blog that are supportive of Prof. Pianka, yet have not seen one that favors mass violent death. The closest I have seen is the general satisfaction expressed above by "Praedor Atrebates" at humans as a species getting their comeuppance.
While I don't doubt that if there were in fact people gleefully plotting the imminent mass death of billions those individuals would support Pianka in this matter, I haven't seen them here. Where are they?
As for "favoring the deaths of billions", I have to say that almost everyone does, in the sense that very few people tend to believe that it is wrong that these physical bodies of ours do eventually wear out and we do die. Since there are billions alive right now, and since I do not believe man is ready for physical immortality, does this make me in favor of the deaths of billions?
Likewise, if I say that a disaster is approaching, and that it is caused to no small extent by the current huge human population, where does that place me?
Posted by: Daniel Martin | April 4, 2006 10:32 AM
Sorry, but I still think this is a case of nut vs. nut and I don't think it's a case of deliberate "swift boating." To the extent that it's "swift boating" at all, it's opportunistic and spontaneous.
Pianka stuck his foot in his mouth and chewed, and the right wing jumped on it. That's that. End of story. Unless someone has a record of the talk, or can provide other information to the contrary.
Eco-doomsday-wackos are just as loony as Dembski and his crowd in my mind.
Posted by: Adam Ierymenko | April 4, 2006 10:33 AM
As far as I can tell here Elisabeth, Dembski did contact the DHS about Pianka. If that isn't akin to being out to get someone given what actually transpired, I don't know what is.
Posted by: David Wilford | April 4, 2006 10:35 AM
I think it doesn't take a conspiracy for nutjobs to send death threats; lots of people can read something and have the same reaction without being told what to do. I should also add that there has been no proof, to my knowledge, that the death threats exist.
Wow, I just had this flashback to all those people who suggested that maybe Mirecki beat himself up...
Posted by: george cauldron | April 4, 2006 10:36 AM
McCarthy was a Communist agitator. Who else gave such publicity to the obscure Commie cause? Who gave microphones in Congress to Commie propaganada mouthpieces? Who went out of his way to pick the most charismatic, professional Commie propagandists, Hollywood Commies, for the limelight before a nation prepared by his Congress to treat the Soviet Commies as our closest military allies? Who botched the whole investigation to protect American Commies for generations, giving anticommunism a bad name in America? McCarthy the Commie mastermind.
The messenger is the message and Ignorance is Strength. Pianka is a bioterrorist. You may now jail me for terrorism.
BTW, War is Peace and Freedom is Slavery.
Posted by: Matthew | April 4, 2006 10:45 AM
'I'd prefer not to get into the issue of the Swift Boat controversy. [...] I'm not sure why "swift-boating" (whatever that means), should be considered different from any other day of shenanigans in Washington.' - Elizabeth
Elizabeth apparently is not familiar with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the fake grassroots movement created by Republicans to lie about their Vietnam experience with/near Kerry to discredit his earning the medals that he got for war heroism. Elizabeth is quick to find disgust in a war hero actually claiming credit for his heroism when explaining to Americans why he should represent us during a war, rather than the guy who started the war with a personal military history limited to draft dodging.
I find it extremely difficult to believe that Elizabeth doesn't know that "swiftboating" means "organized partisan smearing a politician's military history", especially since her father is a Vietnam vet. And especially when she's posting about politics on a blog that is "Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal". Even if she's that ignorant, she has no business - or credibility - shooting off her mouth about attack conspiracies.
Elizabeth: before you deny someone is being "swiftboated", learn what the word means, and find out whether the PR team behind the original swiftboaters is also behind the attack on the next person opposing their client's rightwing agenda. Or even whether just the same tactics are being used for the same result. Otherwise, you're a swiftboater, too, whether or not you realize it.
Posted by: Matthew | April 4, 2006 11:00 AM
The only "swiftboating" I see is against Forrest Mims. You smear him as a "disgruntled Creationist" as if that had any bearing on his reporting of Pianka's speech. Last time I checked, being a Creationist - disgruntled or otherwise - had no bearing on one's testimony in a court of law, so why should it have any bearing any place else. You're all just poisoning the well, that's all.
Convenient that the TAS decided to turn off the camera(s) before Pianka's statements, isn't it? Had some "disgruntled Creationist" allegedly made some controversial statements and the camera(s) had been turned off and only one atheist evolutionist reported it, you'd all be falling over yourselves to condemn the Creationist and praise the atheist evolutionist. Plus you'd be pissing yourselves silly over the camera(s) being turned off, saying that it was some sort of conspiracy. In short, if the tables were turned, you'd be doing the exact thing the "wingnuts" are doing now.
As it stands, the only way this all might be cleared up is if Pianka produces his speech notes. Of course, there's really no way now to guarantee that they'd be the original notes. Again, convenient.
Posted by: That's A Mighty Swift Boat | April 4, 2006 11:05 AM
Otherwise, you're a swiftboater, too, whether or not you realize it.
So let me get this straight - I'm part of a conspiracy even if I don't know it?
That sounds pretty paranoid to me.
I'm addressing the points I made above. If you insist on merging every comment or opinion abount Pianka's speech into a giant perceived smear campaign, I don't know what else to say. If I deny it, I'm a member of the conspiracy, and if I admit it, I'm a member of the conspiracy. :^P
I can disagree with Pianka and find his attitude reprehensible without joining a discussion about "teh evil republicans and how they're out to get us!" Or maybe not, on this blog.
Posted by: Elizabeth | April 4, 2006 11:08 AM
Elisabeth, your failure to at least note in passing what William Dembski did regarding his reporting of Pinaka to the DHS is rather telling, as that is a very concrete example of at least one person who is out to get Pinaka.
Posted by: David Wilford | April 4, 2006 11:12 AM
From http://brenmccnnll.blogspot.com/2006/03/dr.html :
Posted by: Elizabeth | April 4, 2006 11:12 AM
So let me get this straight - I'm part of a conspiracy even if I don't know it?
Perhaps it would be clearer if he said, "You're thinking sloppily, making poor rhetorical arguments and filtering your arguments through ideological lenses."
What Mims says Pianka's speech is about and what people there did and say it's about don't seem congruent.
Posted by: roger tang | April 4, 2006 11:14 AM
Elizabeth, read the rest of the blog. It's not saying what you're claiming it does.
Posted by: roger tang | April 4, 2006 11:16 AM
I'm sorry; then let me address that. Dembski is an idiot. He may in fact be out to "get" Pianka. That does not mean that there is a conspiracy out to get Pianka, which is what's being claimed here (please go back and read my original entry).
Posted by: Elizabeth | April 4, 2006 11:19 AM
Roger, here's another quote from that blog.
Posted by: Elizabeth | April 4, 2006 11:21 AM
Posted by: wamba | April 4, 2006 11:28 AM
oddly, I haven't seen anybody point out one rather salient fact about this little discussion, and where it started (apologies if they did and I missed it; there's a rather large volume of posts on the various threads):
It just so happens, by a gigantic coincidence, that Forrest M Mims is a fellow of the Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture.
Not that I'm suggesting anything orchestrated or anything. Just an observation about what a small world it is.
Posted by: Bored Huge Krill | April 4, 2006 11:33 AM
BHK - It has been mentioned a number of times. That's part of what the conspiracy theories are based on. Association with DI apparently doesn't just mean you're an idiot, it also means you're diabolical and obsessed with taking down all real scientists.
Posted by: Elizabeth | April 4, 2006 11:38 AM
[i]I'm sorry; then let me address that. Dembski is an idiot. He may in fact be out to "get" Pianka. That does not mean that there is a conspiracy out to get Pianka, which is what's being claimed here (please go back and read my original entry).[/i]
Well, Dembski is hardly the only one who is at work here. A conspiracy can be quite open and still be a conspiracy, as long as those who participate in it disavow it when asked directly about their involvement. (The "Know-Nothings" come to mind as the American archetypal example of this.) Given how the slanders against Pianka have spread so quickly on the internet based on little more than hearsay said over and over and over again, I think you miss seeing what is in fact an intentional smear campaign by those with the usual axes to grind.
Posted by: David Wilford | April 4, 2006 11:38 AM
Being a Creationist entails denial and distortion of scientific evidence. If the Creationist well has been poisoned, they did it to themselves.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! As I said, you're poisoning the well.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html
I'm not at all surprised that you can't admit it. Even if you could admit it, I'm sure you'd be proud of it.
Posted by: That's A Mighty Swift Boat | April 4, 2006 11:42 AM
a couple of observations...
I don't think there's a conspiracy. A conspiracy implies hidden communications, plotting, secrecy, etc...
I think it has been made perfectly clear in the last few years that right-wingers, christofascists, corporations, etc... don't NEED conspiracies. Why bother to have a conspiracy when the media isn't caling you on it, and the public is apathetic anyway?
Secondly, in light of the lack of people here advocating the death of billions of humans, let me be the first to do so.
I advocate the eventual death of every single person currently living on this planet. Hell, I'll go further than that - I advocate the eventual death of every single organism currently living on this planet - and the eventual death of each of their descendants.
Posted by: craig | April 4, 2006 11:42 AM
David - I guess we'll have to agree to disagree; it seems perhaps our difference lies in the understanding of the term "conspiracy."
Posted by: Elizabeth | April 4, 2006 11:44 AM
Elizabeth, earlier:"Association with DI apparently doesn't just mean you're an idiot, it also means you're diabolical and obsessed with taking down all real scientists.
We're glad you finally get it.
Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature.
and
Twenty Year Goals
* To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
* To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.
* To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
Posted by: 4sinz | April 4, 2006 11:55 AM
Quoted by Elizabeth:
From http://brenmccnnll.blogspot.com/2006/03/dr.html :
...the bulk of his talk was that he's waiting for the virus that will eventually arise and kill off 90% of human population. In fact, his hope, if you can call it that, is that the ebola virus which attacks humans currently (but only through blood transmission) will mutate with the ebola virus that attacks monkeys airborne to create an airborne ebola virus that attacks humans. He's a radical thinker, that one! I mean, he's basically advocating for the death of all but 10% of the current population! And at the risk of sounding just as radical, I think he's right.
There is a Hitchcock movie called "Rope" where a proffesor was teaching students about Nitezsche and that uberman thing and they took the whole idea a little too seriously and killed another kid to get passed their moral prohibitions. Eventually the teacher catches them and claims "That's not what I meant!" and they protest it was indeed what he had taught them.
I could see that possibility in what Eric Pianka is saying -- someone might take it too seriously and actually do something.
However, not talking about these ideas and possibilities is not the answer. They have to be talked about and explored. These are real questions and real possibilities. Increasing the human population is putting us at risk for all sorts of things -- more mutation of virii and germs in us, large carbon footprint of the human race, consumption of resources that can't be easily replaced... To not talk about these things is to live in denial.
But yes, we should somehow emphasize that we must committ ourselves to better solutions than murder.
Posted by: Norman Doering | April 4, 2006 11:59 AM
I have to agree with Elizabeth. I'm hard-pressed to interpret this as a conspiracy, at least in the sense of a centrally-organized effort.
Instead it looks like a bunch of right-wing bigots, none of whom actually attended the talk or know what Pianka said, are mistaking their pre-existing stereotype of an imaginary evil professor for the actual guy. There are quite a lot of them building up in the echo-chambers, so the effect can be similar to a conspiracy. But I don't see any evidence that is actually *is* a conspiracy.
Posted by: Alex | April 4, 2006 12:02 PM
"I wonder why, with each passing day, I wish I was Vulcan ..."
Because (I suspect) most humans suck...
Posted by: Ambassador Gav | April 4, 2006 12:04 PM
Alex,
I think you hit the nail on the head. When gaggles of likeminded folk get together, a shared viewpoint can quickly become an echo chamber -- and soon after that, a feeding frenzy. They get to encourage each other's fantasies with no outsider input to contradict them; or if there is any, they can be banned easily. It's more a property of human nature than an active conspiracy.
This is how deviant internet subcultures arise, such as furries or FreeRepublic.
Posted by: minimalist | April 4, 2006 12:10 PM
Heh.. I think a version of Godwin's Law should exist for invoking the furry phenomenon. ;^)
Posted by: Elizabeth | April 4, 2006 12:12 PM
Okay, fair enough. The mortality rate is 100%. But I think its also clear that Pianka and others are not talking about this, they are suggesting that a sudden, precipitous decline in human population would be a good and beneficial thing, when clearly, from a perspective that values human life and the continuance of our genetic lines, it is not clear that this is true.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | April 4, 2006 12:14 PM
The Discovery Institute and the Creationists are rebelling against nothing less than the Western Enlightenment.
They are a disgrace and a danger, they must be stopped, and one way or the other, I certainly believe they WILL be stopped. Sideshows like this little scenario (which certainly does have the appearance of a Swift-boat type campaign) are just a distraction from the real issue here - the attempted domination of society by a large, well funded group of paranoid, vengeful kooks who fear whatever they dont understand.
There is nothing "conspiratorial" about the movement to reverse the Western Enlightenment. It is right there, out in the open, for all to see, and as far as Im concerned any incident like this has to be seen, without more information, as a likely manifestation of it.
Launching fake or contrived news reports that seem to marginalize dissenting political groups is standard psy-ops. And the psy-ops flame is being stoked right now. Am I paranoid? Go here:
http://www.sundayherald.com/54975
.
Posted by: Splash | April 4, 2006 12:25 PM
The mortality rate is 100%. But I think its also clear that Pianka and others are not talking about this, they are suggesting that a sudden, precipitous decline in human population would be a good and beneficial thing, when clearly, from a perspective that values human life and the continuance of our genetic lines, it is not clear that this is true.
The continuance of our genetic lines?
Hitler would be proud of you, Seth.
All this hand-wringing over Pianka reminds me of the way the fundie losers get their long johns knotted up over Dr. Singer.
You see, folks, in the minds of the fundies, if you ain't reciting a script about "each human life is sacred" then you're in league with Horned One.
The problem, Seth, is that Pianka isn't talking metaphysics. He's talking about reality. The reality is there is a finite amount of space on the earth for humans, who are relatively large animals and who require a serious chunk of resources.
Either humans stop reproducing at their present rate or a catastrophe will EVENTUALLY occur.
This is reality.
And please don't tell me about the space ships that are going to take us all to the moon and Mars.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | April 4, 2006 12:30 PM
There is a Hitchcock movie called "Rope" where a proffesor was teaching students about Nitezsche and that uberman thing and they took the whole idea a little too seriously and killed another kid to get passed their moral prohibitions. Eventually the teacher catches them and claims "That's not what I meant!" and they protest it was indeed what he had taught them.
I could see that possibility in what Eric Pianka is saying -- someone might take it too seriously and actually do something.
Like drop a couple of atomic bombs on civilians?
Yeah, that's possible.
It's a good thing that only peaceful countries like the United States have tons of atomic weapons. Isn't it?
Posted by: Great White Wonder | April 4, 2006 12:33 PM
The Discovery Institute and the Creationists are rebelling against nothing less than the Western Enlightenment.
They are a disgrace and a danger, they must be stopped, and one way or the other, I certainly believe they WILL be stopped.
I can imagine similar things being said about Galileo by the other scientists of his day (who were, incidentally, the primary opponents to his scientific discoveries about the nature of the solar system - the Church just went along with what they said). Galileo rebelled against the "enlightenment" or "inherited wisdome" of the ancient Greeks. I'm sure he was called "a disgrace and a danger" and scientists called for him to be "stopped, and one way or the other."
Posted by: That's A Mighty Swift Boat | April 4, 2006 12:33 PM
PZ, have you read the comments from Pianka's supporters? It is obvious that they are in favor of the deaths of several billion people, and view it as a good thing.
The Christian deity is in favor of the deaths of even more people than that.
We can infer this with 100% certainty because holy scripture tells us that the Christian deity is omnipotent and he chose to design humans so that we die easily.
Every day millions of humans die, according to God's alleged plan.
And yet the vast majority of us manage to get up and enjoy breakfast every day.
Isn't life a ball?
Now if only the fundies would all go to Fundietown and mind their own business.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | April 4, 2006 12:38 PM
Galileo rebelled against the "enlightenment" or "inherited wisdom" of the ancient Greeks.
Not entirely. Galileo was fond of Greek feta and olives, and ate a Greek salad at least once a week.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | April 4, 2006 12:41 PM
"I can imagine similar things being said about Galileo by the other scientists of his day (who were, incidentally, the primary opponents to his scientific discoveries about the nature of the solar system - the Church just went along with what they said)."
Assuming that you assessment is accurate at all, and I don't think that it is, that only points out the danger of scientists being entangled with theology (there were no professional scientists as we now know them in Galileo's time). Even in Darwin's day, one had to pursue a degree in theology and latin in order to study science, unless one did it on one's own (and was destitute).
Galileo's view prevailed because of the overwhelming evidence for it. That is also the point. That scientists are human, can have knee-jerk reactions, is eventually corrected by the scientific method just as the fact that presidents who want to be dictators is eventually corrected by the separation of powers (assuming we Americans rouse ourselves from the stupor that we've been in for the last 5 years).
The Deception Institute offers nothing but lies and attacks in pursuit of its stated purpose of waging a culture war. If intelligent [sic] design were about science, then it would be about peer review and research, and not try to be a youth movement, or a "culture war" [Dembski], and we wouldn't see any more websites, press releases, church rallies, or these repulsive, irresponsible, self-congratulatory antics from William Dembski & Co.!
Posted by: Kristine | April 4, 2006 12:52 PM
I can imagine similar things being said about Galileo by the other scientists of his day (who were, incidentally, the primary opponents to his scientific discoveries about the nature of the solar system - the Church just went along with what they said). Galileo rebelled against the "enlightenment" or "inherited wisdome" of the ancient Greeks. I'm sure he was called "a disgrace and a danger" and scientists called for him to be "stopped, and one way or the other."
That's the single biggest load of horse shit I've seen all day.
Quickie question for ya bub, were the other "scientists" that you say were calling for Galileo to be stopped the same guys holding the red hot pokers and wearing the funny hats?
Posted by: Boosterz | April 4, 2006 12:56 PM
I have to agree with Elizabeth. I'm hard-pressed to interpret this as a conspiracy, at least in the sense of a centrally-organized effort.
I think the phrase 'spontaneous grass-roots swiftboating' is accurate.
It's also interesting to note that there's really no tangible gain they can expect to get out of this. No election win or the like. Seems like they're just doing it to get their rocks off.
Posted by: george cauldron | April 4, 2006 12:56 PM
I doubt it. I'm an anarchist and an atheist, so I'm pretty much Hitler's second least favorite kind of person. Thinking that the continuation of a large and diverse human population is good isn't exactly Nazism, its more like the exact antithesis of Nazism. And thinking that a population crash is a bad thing is not christian fundamentalism, it is the polar opposite of christian fundamentalism.
And P. definitely isn't talking reality at all. Reality would be that there MAY be a crash if we don't take steps. I didn't notice him advocating any reasonable steps, instead, he advocates the calamity.
This is a bad and evil point of view, from a humanist standpoint.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | April 4, 2006 12:58 PM
Ok. I hadn't actually seen this mentioned anywhere, although I had seen references to Mims as a creationist. An aside - arguably more semantics, but I wouldn't describe him as merely associated with the DI.
I think that, as noted by several others, there's a semantic disconnect about the precise meaning of the word "conspiracy"; specifically surrounding whether what is going on here is a secret. For sure, I don't see anything exactly secret, as such, but consider this:
Mims and Pianka aren't exactly best of friends, as far as we can tell, and they certainly are well known to each other (Pianka says that Mims is "out to get him", but I can't find a primary source for that).
Mims attends a lecture by Pianka, and is quoted in an article which apparently misrepresents Pianka, and includes many inflammatory interpretations by Mims.
Dembski copies the text of said article into his blog post (I thought he gave up posting on his blog?), uncritically promoting contents thereof (no attempt made to locate a primary source of what was actually said), talks about reporting Pianka to DHS (and claims he actually has), but doesn't disclose the fact that Mims is also a DI fellow.
I agree that "conspiracy" is probably the wrong word to use here. I would say that, at best, this is extremely sloppy commentary by Dembski.
Posted by: Bored Huge Krill | April 4, 2006 1:00 PM
Galileo rebelled against the "enlightenment" or "inherited wisdome" of the ancient Greeks. I'm sure he was called "a disgrace and a danger" and scientists called for him to be "stopped, and one way or the other."
You are writing from an alternate reality, aren't you ?
Posted by: T_U_T | April 4, 2006 1:05 PM
Abstract: Faculty [and campus] are on the same path the Kerry campaign followed to swiftboat disaster.
PLAN AHEad
Let's start with campus. Here's a detailed analysis of the far right's campaign to overwhelm progressive college students, Why Conservatives are Winning the Campus Wars. Remember, all that detail [and all that money] accounts for one skirmish [organizing students, framing student thinking], in one battle [fighting for control of colleges], in the larger war [fighting for control of the U.S.].
What is the equivilant counter campaign doing? Doubt there is one. Who's designing the strategy and tactics that will comprise a counter campaign? Doubt there is anyone. Who's thinking about getting such design work underway? Doubt there is anyone. Who's talking about the need to plan realistic defenses? Just me so far.
All the weapons and wealth discussed at the link above is just for students!
For faculty, one important goal the right soon pursue is making academic employment contingent on politics. Listen to the mouthpieces; the skirmishers have already been sent out. I'll give it a campaign name Target Tenure. Faculty, they want state legislatures to meddle in your job, your research, and so, your public speech. It's dangerous to think they can't do this. With all three branches, state and feds, anything on their to-do list is possible.
Current anti-faculty rhetoric is not a new iteration of McCarthyism. These guys have it figured out much more ruthlessly. They identified tenure as the key. McCarthyesque signs are symptoms, distractions, warm-up for a drawn-out national psychomarketing campaign. Target Tenure.
Again, where is the counter-campaign, organizers, thinkers, fundraisers, insight? Here's what not planning ahead gets you --
Swiftboated!
There was an even deeper flaw than the reported inner paralysis in Kerry's campaign about responding to the Swift attack. It was predictable! Content, approach, people, onscreen and off, all happened years before! It was a RERUN!
Because Kerry wisely ran right at Bush's strength, **War President**, a counterattack was inevitable. A psychomarketing approach to the predictable attack would be preparing, months in advance, a counter-counterattack-ad campaign in modular form -- a few different strategies and scripts ready to launch, pre-recorded voice-overs, 5- and 10-second filmed bios on those behind and in it, footage of the previous Nixon-era attacks, all filmed multiple ways, all ready to load into a film editor so that 10-, 15-, 30- and 60-second counter programming could be constructed in a weekend. If the preparations aren't used, it's a pitance of the campaign's expenses. For once, the Democrats had the money to do this.
INSTEAD, the Democrats became talking heads mouthing denials, not against other talking heads, but opposite a carefully designed and constructed, dramatic mini-movie that ran on an endless loop.
The outcome of such a matchup is a no-brainer.
To add insult to injury, the Texas swiftboat financiers got national saturation coverage spending $250,000[?] in a few local television markets. This is psychomarketing, done the right way and the wrong way. Is this getting through to you?
The far right's takeover of the U.S. has been one long, giant, multifaceted, 40-year-long psychomarketing campaign!
Reread previous sentence.
Swiftboating is a tiny bit of that campaign and Pianka details unimportant other than as fodder for enlightenment.
The only way available to counteract that is to counter-program, to counter-psychomarket. Stop arguing about whether it's a conspiracy, or bemoaning stupid Texans, or being irate, or threatening, or defining terms, or . . . It's CAMPAIGN not CONSPIRACY! They're counteracted using different tools. You've got brains -- use'em. Where are the counter-campaigns? The plans? The thoughts. Read the report linked above. Do you really think a disorganized, poorly-funded, business-as-usual, progressive-student approach has a chance in Hell?
Issues like these are addressed and campaigned on a national level. One creates national campaigns that build environments/realities in citizens' minds, that are then activated, specified, adapted, and used locally. This is how the winners do it now in the U.S. Lucid, intelligent, persuasion-based, knowledgable counter-campaigns must start somewhere.
P.S. Those of you who see psychomarketing technology as dishonest, manipulative, appealing to the worst in people, etc., see an ignorant stereotype It doesn't have to be so! I provide evidence of that at The Intersection.
Splash --
This is not a sideshow or distraction. NO WAY! It's instructional material of the highest caliber, and provides entry onto the only path the can succeed against these deranged people.
These are representative building blocks of the technology the right has used to engineer the current state of affairs. Exposed. Pay attention.
Posted by: SkookumPlanet | April 4, 2006 1:09 PM
I can imagine similar things being said about Galileo by the other scientists of his day. ...
Well I can imagine that too, and alot of other things. But what matters in science is evidence, especially when it contradicts the imagination. And what the Creationists are doing is trying to nullify the importance of evidence and substitute faith. This is directly at odds with what I call the Western scientific enlightenment, which promotes evidence over faith, induction over deduction, empiricism over rationalism.
It has to be added that comparing Galileo to the Discovery Institute is a tad bit of a stretch.
Posted by: Splash | April 4, 2006 1:09 PM
So, the other day I'm on my way into work, and I see a three-year-old child calmly playing with his toy cars in the middle of the interstate during rush hour, while his mother watches from the shoulder. Cars are swerving wildly, trying to avoid both the boy and each other. A few cars have already been sideswiped and spun off into the meridian. There is smoke and the smell of burning oil.
I pull off the road and I scream at the mother: "Your boy's going to get killed out there!"
And she just glares at me coolly and says, "Oh, you'd like that, wouldn't you?"
Posted by: HP | April 4, 2006 1:18 PM
And P. definitely isn't talking reality at all. Reality would be that there MAY be a crash if we don't take steps. I didn't notice him advocating any reasonable steps, instead, he advocates the calamity.
Keep spinning, Seth. As for me, I find Pianka a trivial character (never heard of him before this brou-ha-hah). He can wish for whatever he wants.
Likewise, Bill Dembski can wish for whatever he wants.
But let's look at what Bill Dembski just actually DID: he reported Pianka to the Feds !!!?!?!?!
End. Of. Story.
To recap: Pianka = trivial dude in Texas; Dembski = professional peddler for anti-science propaganda, employed by the Discovery Institute, who hires the Swift Boaters.
Got it, Seth?
Thanks.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | April 4, 2006 1:39 PM
Except that the scientist in question is actually EXPRESSING said approval, and that is what people have a problem with.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | April 4, 2006 1:50 PM
"Being a creationist, disgruntled or otherwise, does not impact your testimony in a court of law?" May I suggest you read the Dover judges findings to see what he had to say on this issue. Man irony and ineptitude are not dead but at some point all the low-haning fruit will be gone...won't it?
Posted by: DrKLD | April 4, 2006 1:53 PM
I find Pianka's eco-hysteria silly. But I find Mims and Dembski's right-wing smear hysteria sickening. Guess who's side I'll be on in a tussle?
Posted by: plunge | April 4, 2006 1:54 PM
Spinning? I'm not spinning... I didn't call YOU a nazi. I'm saying that we should not DEFEND the person in questions STATEMENTS, not that he should be reported to homeland security.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | April 4, 2006 1:58 PM
Well, I didn't hear Pianka's speech, all I can refer to is his webpage up at the UT website. And there, he does not gleefully compare the rates of die-off from one disease versus another, and what would be more efficient to kill us off. What he does say, however, is that overpopulation has contributed to the disruption of the natural systems that protect species from pandemics. Doesn't sound loony to me.
What his discreditors are accusing him of sounds like a projection onto Pianka of the character in Frank Herbert's White Plague, where a scientist whose wife and children are killed in an IRA bombing engineers a virus to kill every woman on the planet. Maybe they read too much science fiction.
Posted by: chemparrot | April 4, 2006 2:31 PM