Pharyngula

At this point, I'd be curious to see even a coherent explanation from some Coulter fan to the effect that they don't want to play a game under your ground rules. While there is nothing particularly onerous about expecting a defense of a specific paragraph, I think that response has some legitimacy.

Posted by: PaulC | June 22, 2006 9:34 PM

What Coulter makes her money on is a sort of neocon porn, pretty much the same as a bigot telling dirty ethnic jokes to a bunch of other bigots.

Analyzing the jokes for truth isn't part of the deal. In fact it would ruin it for them, so the deafening silence is not a surprise.

Posted by: Randal | June 22, 2006 10:06 PM

Oh, please. Everyone knows *I'm* the sole voice of reason that keeps PZ honest.

Why is it that the people who claim to have been self-educated know little to nothing about everything, and what they do know seems to have been gotten wrong?

And they can't even read a book before they begin authoritatively stating opinions about it -- for shame, for shame!

Posted by: Caledonian | June 23, 2006 12:04 AM

"You'd just silence me the same as Arianna has; knowing perfectly well there's no reasonable way to rebut me."

How can one rebut someone who never actually comes out and says anything? You've rambled on incessantly without making a single claim other than attesting to your own bravdo and genius... while never actually getting around to demonstrating it.

You want a response man, then SAY SOMETHING. And people will respond.

Posted by: plunge | June 23, 2006 12:19 AM

Tumbler writes:
Do you think this blog had national importance enough to draw fire from all 52 states? Don't flatter yourself.

All 52, huh? Personally, I'd be happy to get to 50.

Tumbler writes:
And I'm not even pretending to be a doctor or professor.

I'm not even going to try to touch that one.

Posted by: nwren | June 23, 2006 12:51 AM

You cut me, nwren. I'm curious what the other two states are. I have suspicions as to what state this cat's in, but it would be unseemly to say so.

Posted by: Matt T. | June 23, 2006 12:55 AM

Opera? Where in the world does the opera connection come in? Pretentious much?

Posted by: DonCulberson | June 23, 2006 12:58 AM

"Young writer"? She's in her mid- to late-fourties and has, what, four books on the market. She's been a public pundit since the mid '90s (wasn't it '96 or so when she told a disabled Vietnam Vet he was the reason the U.S. lost that war?) Let's be serious. It's not like Ms. Coulter's some cherub-cheeked fresh new talent, taking on the literary world with nothing but pluck and gumption.

And for whatever it's worth, I don't care if she hates me or not. Not like she's ever met me, so what does she know?

Posted by: Matt T. | June 23, 2006 1:07 AM

We don't buy AC's book because she sounds and writes like an impudent child. Goading us to buy her books, which by the way have been proven beyond all reasonable doubt to house a density of falsehoods not yet witnessed by man, is like daring us to argue intelligently with a primadonna spoiled child that demands anything and everything it desires. You're not putting up a reputable opponent for debate.

Am I saying that AC is not a suitable debate candidate? Well...yes actually.

On the other hand, people have been in debates with, and challenged AC to debates multiple times. All she comes with is recitations from her books.

If you want us to debate intelligently, at least find someone a touch more qualified, like George Will. If AC is the best representative for truth you have, there's hope for this country yet.

Posted by: BlueIndependent | June 23, 2006 1:12 AM

Maybe Iraq and Afghanistan are the 51st and 52nd states of the United States of America.

Except the people don't have senators or congressmen or even civil order.

But they do have religious theocrats who want to run the country and lots and lots of guns.

Posted by: Liberal doses of Dirk | June 23, 2006 1:16 AM

tumbler, you are the very definition of a troll. You say absolutely nothing of substance, at great great length, mostly just vaugely insulting everyone you can think of and acting in general like a dick for no obvious reason.

You aren't going to get booted out of here because of your viewpoint. You're going to get booted out of here because your lack of a viewpoint is a waste of everyone's time and patience. Every post of yours I've read has been an exercise in wishing I could get back the time I've lost. Not a single thing you've said so far has made any appreciable point worth remembering.

And no one with a brain will have the least bit of regret about tossing you out. I'm sure you'll whine and bitch about it to whatever next blog you plop yourself down in before being run off again. I feel really really, sorry for those new people.

Posted by: plunge | June 23, 2006 1:25 AM

Oh, do we have an opera thread now? I don't think it will last (just a bit off topic, don't you know?), but it might be fun for the nonce. However, I prefer the Sturm und Drang of the noisy German stuff, viz., Wagner and Strauss (R., not J.). I'm even rather fond of the completely imaginary stuff.

I wonder, though, what this alpha-male display behavior is all about. The focus of this site is biology. That makes most of us here members of the laity. We can express our opinions with varying degrees of persuasiveness, based on varying degrees of knowledge, but randomly piling up personal attributes doesn't accomplish much. It smells of squandered testosterone.

Posted by: Zeno | June 23, 2006 1:34 AM

hey plunge, I second your motion to ban tumbler.
your comments were on mark, however they appeared to go over his head (possibly because it's a pinhead). Not even once has any sense been observed in his posts. Dissenting posts are a welcome challenge but that appears to be beyond his scope or ability.

Posted by: richCares | June 23, 2006 1:44 AM

I know only what I see in the media about Godless. Neither do any of you. PZ least of all; but he issues a challenge. We should bring forth a snippet from the book and HE shall demonstrate how pathetic it actually is.

This is untrue. In previous posts, Prof. Myers has addressed points made in Godless concerning the stuff she said specifically on evolution. He notes in this post, where he points out a number of misfires and outright lies. He goes into more detail here and here. Perhaps you missed them?

Posted by: Matt T. | June 23, 2006 1:46 AM

This is a science blog focused on biology, not a political blog. The only reason PZ has brought up Coulter, as far as I can tell, is to point out that her recent book appears to contain uncounted errors on scientific issues. He's an expert, and is wondering if any of Coulter's fans can defend *any* of the scientific claims she makes. So far, all I'm hearing on that score is the crickets. And I'm getting the impression that Coulter readers know even less biology than she does.

If any of us want to "debate" the merits of Coulter's political views, I'm sure we can find other forums to do that. But I suspect most of us would find the experience pointless: Coulter seems to be all rhetoric, no evidence, and we science types find the evidence for claims to be the interesting part.

And the rhetoric itself? Ghoulish (9/11 widows enjoy their husbands' deaths), demented (Timothy McVeigh should have blown up the NYT), and fascist (can you tell the difference between Hitler and Coulter?). I wouldn't accept an offer to debate against David Duke or Georg Haider on their political views, and the same goes for Coulter.

Posted by: mss | June 23, 2006 1:56 AM

"If you're looking for PZ Myers to bounce me for not giving you & others the necessary excitement (punching-bag) and satisfaction, maybe he ought to sell tickets to the spectacle."

Trolls get tossed all the time, and somehow, the world turns without you. No one is asking for punching bags. But you have had nothing at all to say, and have basically just tried to be as annoying on offtopic as possible. You're a pest and nothing less. You'd be just as dull and unwelcome on any board of any political stripe.

Posted by: plunge | June 23, 2006 2:09 AM

Well; she isn't a qualified judge of evolution science I know. Her fury is really directed at the liberal agenda that demands it ratified and required in the schoolroom. As if it contained no noticeable flaw. As anyone can see, it does. We refer to it as a Missing Link.

That doesn't make any sense. Is it merely part of the "liberal agenda" that other scientific theories such as gravity or the photoelectric effect or photosynthesis? In other words, is teaching solid science part of the "liberal agenda"? And the "Missing Link", or lack thereof, means evolutions is irrevocably flawed? What in the world does that mean? I'm not expert on the subject, but I do know that there's no serious scientific concept of a single "missing link" whereupon hinges the whole theory. Evolution doesn't work that way, not by a long shot. The fossil record is filled with examples of creatures that represent change throughout the ages.

I don't mean to be rude, but I really don't think you know what you're talking about. Prof. Myers asked for Coulter defenders to back up her claims about evolution, but it doesn't appear that you have a solid grasp on the concept. There are several excellent websites available to learn what you need to know, particularly Panda's Thumb and TalkOrigins.Org. There's also several very accessible books available that give the layman a deeper understand of evolution, genetics and the development of life on Earth. I personally recommend Richard Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale.

And finally, I guess it's obvious you're not really trying to match Prof. Myers' challenge, as you're not making a serious attempt to back up claims inre: evolution, merely tossing about nonsense like "liberal agenda". Good science is not and should not be a partisan issue. And furthermore, by your own admittance, Coulter is not an expert on the biological sciences, however she took it upon herself to criticize various tenants of evolution and the reasons why serious scientists study it. She also managed to do some heavy plagiarizing, apparently, and get a whole lot wrong in the process by quoting the most dubious of sources. Had you done the requisite research before coming to her "defense", you might have known that.

I must say, you've mounted a pretty poor defense of Coulter's claims on evolution. If, as you suggest, she's spewing falsehoods and such because evolution - and indeed, good science - represents part of the "liberal agenda", then her motivation is, therefore, suspect and so is any defense of her. As a scientist and an educator, it is within Prof. Myers' right and responsibility to criticize someone who lies about his field in order to further a political goal, especially someone with the public access of an Ann Coulter.

You haven't read up on the previous critiques of Coulter by the site owner. You haven't read any of the book in question (while he has). This is by your own admission. You obviously don't have a solid grasp of the modern theory of evolution. You cannot or will not mount a solid rebuttal based in sound science to said criticisms. Your postings on this thread bear this out.

All we do know is that you really don't like liberals and you really like Ann Coulter. And opera.

Posted by: Matt T. | June 23, 2006 2:35 AM

Tumbler wrote:

Strange how you've had to recoil at the straightforward posts of one self-educated Christian & conservative. You were supposed to bang me up with flair, and you whimper because I don't ''shut up.''

Why should biologists take the Whore of Babylon's book seriously? She's just
the newest initiate into the ID Cargo Cult.

Dressing ID followers up in lab jackets and lifting laptops to the heavens
isn't going to get them the answers that evolution has provided mankind.

Maybe for her next performance High Priestess Ann can perform the
Ritual of the Sacred and Holy Equation for next year's summer solstice.

I would prefer Mr. "self-educated Christian & conservative" would keep his
cargo cult to his own tribe.......

Posted by: Dark Matter | June 23, 2006 3:04 AM

This is a science blog focused on biology, not a political blog. The only reason PZ has brought up Coulter, as far as I can tell, is to point out that her recent book appears to contain uncounted errors on scientific issues. He's an expert, and is wondering if any of Coulter's fans can defend *any* of the scientific claims she makes. So far, all I'm hearing on that score is the crickets. And I'm getting the impression that Coulter readers know even less biology than she does.

If any of us want to "debate" the merits of Coulter's political views, I'm sure we can find other forums to do that.

The quote on the masthead, which I assume is PZ's doing, describes PZ as a "liberal". The post That danged exasperating caution appears to be explicitly political, as do many others. In fact, it's filed under politics, as are a number of other posts.

It's up to PZ to describe what this blog is, I would think, and clearly his focus is what he does and is expert in. But, until PZ says otherwise, it would appear that politics, as they touch on science and otherwise to a degree (based on what PZ has chosen to post) are indeed legitimate subject of this blog.

Of course, PZ can say this is wrong any time he chooses. (I happen to agree with his politics, but that's not germane, I don't think.)

Posted by: sixteenwords | June 23, 2006 3:59 AM

I'm almost surprised that no one from uncommon descent has had a go, given the post about PZ's projection.
The other dishonest thing Paul does right off the bat is uses the term "evolution" in the loosest sense of descent with modification and then presumes that Coulter is disavowing that broad definition of evolution when in fact Coulter is doing nothing of the sort but is rather only bashing, and bashing really well, the baseless notion that evolution is a purposeless process driven solely by chance and necessity.
Surely in that case there must be dozens of factual examples he can point to.

Posted by: Mr Ash | June 23, 2006 6:17 AM

"Strange how you've had to recoil at the straightforward posts of one self-educated Christian & conservative. You were supposed to bang me up with flair, and you whimper because I don't ''shut up.''"

Oh, poor tumbler. To go through life with a misguided persecution complex about how it must be because he's "self-educated and Christian" that everyone thinks he's a baiting, long-winded troll. That sad misjudgement is sure to cost him many a friend before he figures out that the problem is him, not his religion or upbringing.

As to some other comments: PZ can call it whatever he wants, but IMHO this is a science blog that discusses politics from time to time too and arguing over exactly what to call it is meaningless. If tumbler thinks he can make a political point, hey, I'm sure he can go ahead and make one (I won't hold my breath for that either, hint: tumbler, just babbling about how you like opera is not the same thing as making ANY sort of point, political or scientific) and if PZ cares, he can argue the point.

Also, I wouldn't plainly refer to evolution as a fact, since there are many different things we could mean by the word "evolution," but rather as a theory (i.e. set of explanations and explanatory frameworks) that consistently and robustly explains an important fact (common descent of all known life with particular patterns and rates of modification): just as QM is a theory that explains some important facts (two-slit observations, etc.) That's a much more robust description of how science works than simply saying that this or that is a fact, which, while it's basically on target in terms of layperson terminology, isn't actually all that descriptive in the end.

And it's just plain goofy to give unrealistically precise values of certainty to anything: that's just insulting to mathematicians (besides, .9 with infinate 9s after it is mathematically exactly equivalent to the interger 1, weren't you listening to Good Math, Bad Math?!!).

Posted by: plunge | June 23, 2006 7:39 AM

If every excerpt from the book we can find is a flaming bag of poo, are we really expected to rush out and buy it/read it in order to give AC a fair shake? My understanding is that PZ has read the chapters in question, and was so overwhelmed by the quantity of falsehoods that rather than write a whole book refuting her claims, he asked that anyone point out a single paragraph in the science section that they can stand behind.

For example, if I were a creationist, I might ask him to refute this paragraph:

Darwinism is nothing but a gap. After 150 years of dedicated searching into the fossil record, evolution's proponents have failed utterly to substantiate its claims. And a long line of supposed evidence, from the infamous Piltdown Man to the "evolving" peppered moths of England, has been exposed as hoaxes. Still, liberals treat those who question evolution as religious heretics and prohibit students from hearing about real science when it contradicts Darwinism. And these are the people who say they want to keep faith out of the classroom?

Posted by: No One Of Consequence | June 23, 2006 8:41 AM

And every sentence seems to be wrong in multiple ways, too. Remarkable!

Posted by: Caledonian | June 23, 2006 9:07 AM

Ignoring Tumbler's brain-fart about 52 states (stuff like that happens to me all the time), has he looked at the international readership of this blog? Yes, T, this blog reaches all 50 states, and the uncensored part of the rest of the planet, too. (I doubt it's accessible in China or Iran)

But this is a common theme of trollery: ignore the specific request, challenge, or issue (in this case, defending the scientific content of one of Coulter's evolution-related statements) and just bluster a lot.

Oh, and I'm 'self-educated' too. It's the obligation of every citizen, whatever degrees they hold. Education stops when the heartbeat does.

Posted by: DOF | June 23, 2006 9:15 AM

Which states are the 51st and the 52nd?

Still in the planning stage, but the states are:

Liberaliana: liberals are deported here and forced to listen to Ann Coulter 24/7. Needless to say, no one ever comes out alive.

Califorangiana: a state created for residents of Orange County, California. Conservatives living here pepper their conversation with off-hand remarks about blowing up the New York Times Building and executing anyone who isn't conservative. No. 1 on the bestseller list: Who Stole My Ann Coulter? Darwin? Banned from the libraries. Actually, they don't call them libraries. They are known as "Conservative Science" reading rooms.

Posted by: George | June 23, 2006 10:17 AM

"And every sentence seems to be wrong in multiple ways, too."

Coulter's creationist arguments are interbreeding and producing hopeless monsters. She can't even get her supposed objections to evolutionary theory straight. Forget evolution--it's creationism that seems to be abused so far in her book.

I've read her columns. Blah, blah, parroting, blah, blah, I didn't come up with this concept either, blah, blah, look at me thinking for myself ("Darwinism"?), blah, blah, I need my hyperbole fix, ah, that's it! yakkity-yak.

Posted by: Kristine | June 23, 2006 10:19 AM

Work order, submitted to Troll HQ by "tumbler":

nonsensical posts on Pharangula: 37 x $1.77/post
ad hominem attacks " " 82 x $0.37/attack
factual supports of arguments 0 x -$1.26/fact
reasonable citations 0 x -$4.36/citation
bold-faced inaccuracies 13 x $22.56/instance

In case anybody was wondering why tumbler says things like "52 states", it all comes down to how the pay scale at Troll HQ works. The purpose of Troll HQ is simply to bog down discourse with inanity. Looking like an idiot while you do so is encouraged.

Posted by: RickD | June 23, 2006 10:49 AM

Oh, and I think I caught tumbler writing for 'the onion':
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/49604

I'm Not One Of Those Fancy College-Educated Doctors

By Dr. Mike Ruddy
June 21, 2006 | Issue 42•25

I'm a doctor, and I'm damn good at it. Why? Because I learned to be a doctor the old-fashioned way: gumption, elbow grease, and trial and error. I'm not one of these blowhards in a white coat who'll wear your ears out with 10 hours of mumbo-jumbo technical jargon about "diagnosis" this and "prognosis" that, just because he loves the sound of his own voice. No sir. I just get the job done.

Those fancy-pants college-boy doctors are always making a big deal about their "credentials." But I'm no show-off phony with a lot of framed pieces of paper on the wall--I'm the real deal. I got my M.D. on the street. These people think they're suddenly a "doctor" because they memorized a lot of big words and took a bunch of formal tests. But there's plenty of things about being a doctor they'll never learn in their ivory-tower medical school.
...

Posted by: lovepettis | June 23, 2006 11:15 AM

"tumbler = DaveScot if you haven't noticed."

For real? That dude has some mega inanity skills. The fact that Dembski has him administrating his blog pretty much is case in point that Dembski is a nutjob. Oh, well, that and and his mathematics are complete nonsense. Did you know that if you actually try to work out what his definitions of "specified" and "complexity" are, they end up being two completely contradictory qualities? Seriously: he wants to claim that, say, a human being has "specified complexity" which if you work out his definition, roughly equates to "something that has a lot of information, but doesn't have a lot of information."

Posted by: plunge | June 23, 2006 11:17 AM

I wonder if tumbler isn't trolling in the original sense: intentionally making up the most inane things he can think of to say in order to waste the time of those foolish enough to respond. The "52 states" comment increases the likelihood. Elsewhere, tumbler claimed to be nearly 70 and to remember WWII as a child. In that case, he should have memories of Alaska and Hawaii gaining statehood. I can imagine some young kid from a bad school district getting the number of states wrong, but not somebody who claims to have lived through the second half of the 20th century.

I also wonder if tumbler isn't posting drunk a fair part of the time. I don't mean that as an ad hominem attack. I've done it myself (not in years). Some of his comments are so meandering and incoherent that it is more of a struggle to figure out what he is trying to say than it is to rebut it.

Posted by: PaulC | June 23, 2006 11:37 AM

"Well; she isn't a qualified judge of evolution science I know. Her fury is really directed at the liberal agenda that demands it ratified and required in the schoolroom. As if it contained no noticeable flaw."

Tumbler, if she knew anything about science, she'd realise that it doesn't contain any deadly flaws. No more than modern medicine, physics, engineering, or chemistry.

Why are you basing your opinion of evolution's validity on the views of someone who by your own admission knows nothing about evolution's validity? It's the blind leading the blind. It'd be like basing your opinion of George W. Bush's species on the knowledge of a flying squirrel.

Posted by: sockatume | June 23, 2006 11:59 AM

My God, the more of tumbler's posts I read, the more hilarious it gets. I imagine if he was hired to sell cars, he'd go after customers with a convincing argument for the rental of bacon-powered submersible crab-robots. He's gone so far with the straw man fallacy that he's no longer fighting straw men, but attacking the straw dispenser at McDonalds.

Posted by: sockatume | June 23, 2006 12:04 PM

Has anyone ever seen tumber and John Davidson in the same room?

Posted by: Lixivium | June 23, 2006 12:09 PM

I have to say, I was really surprised to see this thread go from "0 to 60" (comments) in just a couple hours.

We do need to stop feeding the trolls.

But it's a kind of bravado on our part as well, I think. We who respond to lunatics like tumbler, and the entire ID crowd, feel a little bit of: _I've_ got something to say that will shut them up for good.

Never works.

When we are rational, they respond with irrationality (as they only can). When we get exasperated, then the giggle with delight, "See? I made those (liberals, scientists, evolutionists, atheists, etc.) lose their marbles."

I repeat my invitation to tumbler to come over to the Internet Infidels discussion board: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/index.php

There are lots and lots of people there that need to "hear the message of the Lord," the topics are very wide-ranging, and almost nobody gets banned.

I extend the invitation to all of you. If you've never visited Internet Infidels, come on over: http://www.infidels.org

Posted by: Spike | June 23, 2006 12:19 PM