…and this is a 
Hrm. Well. Since so many people are emailing me about this (I guess the book is officially out now, since so many are reading it), I'll come clean: I am mentioned briefly but flatteringly in Dawkins' new book, The God Delusion(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll). I'll spare you all the mystery, and quote it here, blushingly. It's on page 69, in a section titled "The Neville Chamberlain School of Evolutionists" (no, I'm not one of the members, I'm a critic; but as you can tell from the title, it's a strong criticism of a school of thought that says we must appease the fence-straddlers who fear the godlessness of evolution). He cites a couple of things I've posted here: The Dawkins/Dennett boogeyman, Our double standard, and The Ruse-Dennett feud.
A page worth of the relevant section is quoted below the fold. Hey, if you like it, buy the book!
The Guardian journalist Madeleine Bunting wrote an article entitled 'Why the intelligent design lobby thanks God for Richard Dawkins.' There's no indication that she consulted anybody except Michael Ruse, and her article might as well have been ghost-written by him. Dan Dennett replied, aptly quoting Uncle Remus:
I find it amusing that two Brits — Madeleine Bunting and Michael Ruse — have fallen for a version of one of the most famous scams in American folklore (Why the intelligent design lobby thanks God for Richard Dawkins, March 27). When Brer Rabbit gets caught by the fox, he pleads with him: 'Oh, please, please, Brer Fox, whatever you do, don't throw me in that awful briar patch!' — where he ends up safe and sound after the fox does just that. When the American propagandist William Dembski writes tauntingly to Richard Dawkins, telling him to keep up the good work on behalf of intelligent design, Bunting and Ruse fall for it! 'Oh golly, Brer Fox, your forthright assertion — that evolutionary biology disproves the idea of a creator God — jeopardises the teaching of biology in science class, since teaching that would violate the separation of church and state!' Right. You also ought to soft-pedal physiology, since it declares virgin birth impossible...
This whole issue, including an independent invocation of Brer Rabbit in the briar patch, is well discussed by the biologist P. Z. Myers, whose Pharyngula blog can reliably be consulted for trenchant good sense.
I am not suggesting that my colleagues of the appeasement lobby are necessarily dishonest. They may sincerely believe in NOMA, although I can't help wondering how thoroughly they've thought it through, and how they reconcile the internal conflicts in their minds. There is no need to pursue the matter for the moment, but anyone seeking to understand the published statements of scientists on religious matters would do well not to forget the political context: the surreal culture wars now rending America. NOMA-style appeasement will surface again in a later chapter. Here, I return to agnosticism and the possibility of chipping away at our ignorance and measurably reducing our uncertainty about the existence or non-existence of God.
That's it, a brief mention…there's a few hundred pages more that don't mention me, just to put it in perspective, OK?
Comments
Posted by: QrazyQat | September 19, 2006 7:44 PM
Very nice nevertheless. Of course you need to act humble for the sake of Prairie Home Companion fans. It's a really good plug too (too bad no links yet in books).
Posted by: steve s | September 19, 2006 7:51 PM
I think I just heard some keyboards melt over at UncommonlyDense.
Posted by: Stuart Coleman | September 19, 2006 7:52 PM
Adam of Daylight Atheism was quoted too, I guess Dawkins reads blogs. It's still something of an honor, you seem to be getting quite a few of them lately. Congrats!
Posted by: Siamang | September 19, 2006 7:54 PM
I oughta pick it up. Ebon Muse and you are mentioned... maybe I'm mentioned too!
"Occasional Pharyngula commentor Siamang constantly provides an elegant yet ceaselessly witty counter-argument to the fluffy-headed foolishness of the current religious brouhaha. His insight is only exceeded by his charm and bravado.".... Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, page 732.
Posted by: Dave Godfrey | September 19, 2006 7:55 PM
I don't see why they can't put the url in the book. After al we're encouraged to put it in dissertations if that's the source for some information.
However what happens in 100 years time? What if I want to find out about this PZ Myers person? I'll know about his published work, but I suspect his blog will have vanished into the ether.
Having said that, Darwin talks about a lot of people he corresponded with in the origin of species who's work is all but lost.
Posted by: George | September 19, 2006 7:56 PM
WOOHOO!!!
My copy is not shipping from Amazon until October 3. Arrrr!
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
September 19, 2006 7:58 PM
The urls are in the footnotes.
Siamang, if only he'd kept typing for a few hundred more pages, I'm sure he would have gotten around to you.
Posted by: Jonathan Badger | September 19, 2006 8:51 PM
The problem I have with the "Brer Rabbit" hypothesis is it seems to ignore the fact that anyone who has suffered through a creationist lecture must have noticed -- that creationists generally include a slide or two of Dawkins quotes in their presentations. Why do they do this? Because they find the association of atheism with evolution to be useful for their purposes. Even if you believe that Ruse is some sort of creationist secret agent trying to silence Dawkins (which I don't), it is hard to explain away the actions of the creationists themselves.
Posted by: TheBrummell | September 19, 2006 9:10 PM
...it is hard to explain away the actions of the creationists themselves.
It's hard to explain - here or away - any actions of creationists at all. They're basically irrational, so any rational attempt to understand their activities will only succeed to a very shallow degree.
Also, the peasants are revolting, and other lame puns.
Posted by: Castaa | September 19, 2006 9:17 PM
That's like being mentioned by the Pope! The atheist pope anyway. ;-)
In this insistance, thankfully, no riots.
Posted by: shiva | September 19, 2006 9:38 PM
Dan Dennet refers to the fig-Newton of IT as an "American propagandist". Excellent!
Posted by: Great White Wonder | September 19, 2006 9:43 PM
However what happens in 100 years time? What if I want to find out about this PZ Myers person? I'll know about his published work, but I suspect his blog will have vanished into the ether.
Never fear! I'm transcribing every word written here onto grains of rice. I've got a table full of grains right here, meticulously ordererd by date, and ... ah. ... ah.... AHHH CHOOOO!!!!!!
Oh shit.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | September 19, 2006 9:44 PM
that creationists generally include a slide or two of Dawkins quotes in their presentations. Why do they do this?
Dawkins' magick spells can not be resisted.
Posted by: Alexander Vargas | September 19, 2006 9:50 PM
If I say what I think I will just get disemvoweled, I know...
Posted by: Jason | September 19, 2006 10:06 PM
This is a bit tangential, but does anyone know why Dawkins' new book came out a month ahead of schedule? I had been anxiously awaiting the December release when I got a phone call from a friend who had just bought a few copies (and quickly purchased my own). Sure, I was happy to get the book, but what happened? And do you think this has any effect on the book's release buzz? The press and public was presumably ready for a big October release, instead I found the book hiding underneath a table at Barnes and Noble.
Oh, to bring this back, the first thing my friend said to me when he called was "How great is it that PZ Myers is mentioned in The God Delusion?" (I concurred.)
Posted by: andy | September 19, 2006 10:06 PM
Oh, sure, I meet the man, tell him he was a driving force in my deconversion to atheism, and do I get a mention? Heck no!
I swear, if I hadn't already put the pre-ordered book on hold from the library, I'd never read it!
OK, fine, so maybe I will.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
September 19, 2006 10:24 PM
I got my copy a few months ago, and it said it was for a mid-september release -- they also had embargoed it so I couldn't say much until now.
Posted by: mijnheer | September 19, 2006 10:36 PM
Dawkins on CBC Newsworld for two hours on Wednesday, repeated Sunday:
http://www.cbc.ca/bigpicture/evil.html
Posted by: "Q" the Enchanter | September 19, 2006 10:47 PM
Pretty durned cool.
Posted by: Zeno | September 19, 2006 10:50 PM
It's not at all unusual for an "October release" book to be found in bookstores in the latter days of September. Some publishers would like to enforce release dates more strictly, but unless it's a guaranteed blockbuster (like one of the Harry Potter books), bookstores are inclined to start slipping copies out onto shelves once the official date is within a couple of weeks and the books are already stacked up in the back room. A bookstore manager I know says there's no penalty for jumping the gun a bit on mid-list books; enforcers worry only about the embargoes on the high-profile cases.
I don't know if his experience is common throughout the book retailing business. He works at an independent bookstore, not a chain.
Posted by: Zeno | September 19, 2006 10:53 PM
By the way, folks, if you hunger for your own moment of fame, you can now conveniently mock up a newspaper story about your greatness. It's the Newspaper Clipping Generator, to which I link here, along with my own self-indulgent example.
Posted by: Kristine | September 19, 2006 10:54 PM
I just got my copy today. Whoo-hoo! I should be studying.
Not shipping until Oct. 3? What up?
Posted by: Jonathan Badger | September 20, 2006 12:11 AM
Cute. But as insane as they are, they do seem to understand effective propaganda, or we wouldn't need to worry about them.
Dawkins reminds me a lot of the total pacifists who argue against the Iraq war not by arguing about why that war was particularly unjustified, but by arguing that all wars are unjustified. Much like Dawkins, such people do have a point, but the reality is it is just too easy for the other side to quote their absolute positions to say "look, if you don't agree with us this is the sort of stuff you have to believe"
Posted by: Alexander Vargas | September 20, 2006 12:58 AM
Well, I'll try to be nice. With pretty sugar icing on top...lest I be disemvoweled.
Mr Dawkins excells at calling on the irrationality of all those who do not bow to his ideas. Other atheists who insist that science will never prove or disprove the existence of god...well, we must have some kind of neural disease or something.
Maybe, if we just all squeezed our eyes and tried super hard to be RATIONAL... world peace will just spill over the brim. What a waste of time, to try to deal with it right away. Intelligence, nothing but for the sake of intelligence itself, must go first... and all the rest will just follow, effortlessly.
Ain't that so?
Posted by: John Owens | September 20, 2006 1:35 AM
Jonathan: But then, after all, propaganda isn't exactly a rational field of pure logic. Seems like the insane would feel right at home there, and do.
Posted by: Dustin | September 20, 2006 2:08 AM
I plan on reading the book. I've always been a big opponent of the Cult of the Fence Rail, on several grounds.
Maybe I can buy the book in a very conspicuous manner next time Ted Haggard, his facial tics and his Dr. Evil-esque vocal contortions invade my campus bookstore.
Posted by: truth machine | September 20, 2006 2:47 AM
Leave the strawmen for the stupid people. Oh, wait ...
That's kind of funny, since Dawkins just explained it. "Look! Creationists put Dawkins on their slides! He really must be bad for us!" say the dimwits.
Posted by: Martin Christensen | September 20, 2006 3:39 AM
GWW:
I'm sorry, Sir, but I think you'll find that you're wrong. Jesus saves, you see, so his fanboys get an extra +10 on the relevant saving throws, including everything in Dawkins' arsenal, so they might indeed make it.Martin
Posted by: Great White Wonder | September 20, 2006 4:17 AM
The Dungeon Master is dead.
Posted by: truth machine | September 20, 2006 4:24 AM
So the pacifists should do what? Lie about what they believe? Commit suicide? If there were no pacifists, would the other side fold up due to lack of arguments?
On the one hand we have bright people like Dawkins, and on the other hand we have cowardly dimwits like Badger. Who are we better off for?
Posted by: Ugo Cei | September 20, 2006 6:33 AM
Added to my Amazon cart! Even though allitterations like "thoroughly they've thought it through" tend to scare me away ;)
Posted by: Rich | September 20, 2006 6:40 AM
Dwkns s qt mnr sprm!
Posted by: nat | September 20, 2006 7:03 AM
I have been reading all the posts about creationists for several days now, but until yesterday I was thinking "those americans guys are crazy, I'm glad we don't have them in Europe". But yesterday evening I saw a documentary on TV about them : the Discovery Institute, Ken Ham, the museum... and their progression in Europe. It was terrifying. I have never imagined I could see someone explaining that Earth was older than the stars and that dinosaurs were vegetarian and coexisted with Adam and Eve. The worst thing is that some Europeans politics start to ask for a debate with these kind of people. Completly incredible and very frightening.
Posted by: Jonathan Badger | September 20, 2006 8:20 AM
There's someone presenting a straw man here but I don't think it's me. Dawkins is only giving two possible motivations for people who question the constructiveness of his methods 1) the Dennett/PZ "Brer Rabbit" hypothesis claiming that critics are simply creationists using reverse psychology to attack a powerful foe and 2) Troubled theists trying to hold onto their faith by invoking NOMA to avoid asking themselves hard questions.
I don't fall into either category, and neither does Eugenie Scott or any number of defenders of evolution who happen to be atheists as well.
They could, or they could simply focus their attacks on the problem at hand: the Iraq war. It is a curious notion of absolutists that compromise is often characterized as "lying", "cowardice", "being Neville Chamberlain", etc. And yet at every level of organization, from university departments to nations, compromise among members with different viewpoints to achieve common goals seems to be the rule. In many ways, absolutists are the real cowards because it is unlikely that they will get into positions of power and can instead just spend their lives whining about the people in control.
Perhaps not, but the hawks *love* to characterize their opponents as trippy hippy pacifists; they know that most people rightly or wrongly see such people as crackpots. It's the former military officers against the Iraq war that the hawks really fear.
Posted by: Warren | September 20, 2006 11:15 AM
Plus the occasional foray into pirate lingo.
(Nice mention!)
Posted by: Alexander Vargas | September 20, 2006 12:05 PM
Bush's popularity has not stopped rising since May. Am I the only one here to point out the uncomfortable fact ?
If republicans (or like-minded democrats) stay in power, the problem with ID will continue. National security. Money. Oil. Foreign policy. Fascism. These are the issues in which we are trapped. It's way more than religion. Religion is the banner of choice. The spread of ID, the consequence. It does not hinge on intellectual debate. And meantime, many here seem to think it is all about some outbreak of irrationality fallen out of the sky. You congratulate yourselves for being so smart. How can you not prevail?
ID growing in Europe? No surprise at all. Nationalism is also on the rise. All you europeans that think "Oh, Europe is just intellectually superior to the US. It will never happen here" , think again. I belive that was preciseley the mistake here in the US. And it continues to be. To think this is just some outbreak of irrationality and stupidity.
Not a very sophisticated lecture of things, isn't it. Actually, just smug. SMUG!!!! The very plague of these frivolous, dark times.
Posted by: Watchman | September 20, 2006 12:36 PM
Good points, Alexander - I'm still in awe of America's ability to believe things unquestionably, especially "It can't happen here." We have a good system of checks and balances here, and that keeps the pendulum swinging back and forth (as it should, I suppose) but profound changes have a way of occuring in the form of very small increments that slip over, under, or around the radar.
On the plus side:
1. The Bush rise in popularity is probably the result of a) the fact that his numbers couldn't have gone any lower, b) the subliminal effect of falling gas prices, and c) a small deserved bump for the simple act of being a little more honest. I don't see it as a public reinvestment of unqualified faith.
2. I saw an item this morning about the recent tendency of GOP gubanatorial candidates to try to appear more liberal. Whoa! The "L" word isn't ballot-box poison anymore? Maybe the pendulum is swinging back. A little. Finally. Not that Lefties should become complacent... no no no.
Or maybe I'm just indulging in magical thinking?
Posted by: Steve_C | September 20, 2006 12:37 PM
Dude. you're high. his approval ratings have been hovering around 37% for months.
Occassionally it bumps up to 40%
His disapproval ratings are even more solid holding at 60%.
Also it looks like the Democrats might, just might win enough seats in the senate to either
take control or in the very least stalemate it.
You fail to understand that the Christian Right is very organized and very committed to pushing their goals. However, 60% is solidly against it getting more power. Plus the Republicans seem to be doing a pretty good job of self destructing.
Our educational system is messed up. But it has little to do with ID or religion.
Posted by: Stogoe | September 20, 2006 12:51 PM
I'd say our education system is messed up because people who are ideologically committed to tearing it (and all government) down are sitting on school boards and legislatures across the nation. Not so coincidentally, they all seem to be far-right religioids who want ID in schools for the 'creamy Creationist center'.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | September 20, 2006 1:04 PM
Bush's popularity has not stopped rising since May. Am I the only one here to point out the uncomfortable fact ?
Wow, this Vargas moron is one stupid troll.
Posted by: mtraven | September 20, 2006 1:09 PM
Negative review from the Prospect (UK).
I haven't had a chance to read the book but the review is pretty believable -- Dawkins is as subtle as a sledgehammer when it comes to religion.
I'm reading Darwin's Cathedral right now, which is a much more interesting approach to the intersection of evolution and religion, whether or not you buy into its group-selectionist ideas.
Posted by: oldhippie | September 20, 2006 1:21 PM
"However, 60% is solidly against it getting more power. Plus the Republicans seem to be doing a pretty good job of self destructing."
Doesn't help much if the other side control the voting machines.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | September 20, 2006 1:33 PM
It has been obvious for years that Richard Dawkins had a fat book on religion in him, but who would have thought him capable of writing one this bad? Incurious, dogmatic, rambling and self-contradictory, it has none of the style or verve of his earlier works.
Is Allen McNeill writing book reviews now?
Posted by: Steve_C | September 20, 2006 1:37 PM
Or the Superme Court. I suspect there will be alot of very close races and fair amount of recounts if they're too close. Republican controlled states also like to create a shortage of polling booths in precincts where the vote is solidly republican. Long lines discourage votes.
Posted by: hans Derycke | September 20, 2006 2:08 PM
But look at that page number! Certainly an intelligently designed book...
Posted by: Alexander Vargas | September 20, 2006 2:15 PM
Last thing I heard was 44 %... a good 10 points from May. But hey, please, don't let anything interrupt your smuggy trips
Posted by: Steve_C | September 20, 2006 2:32 PM
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
That's USA Today/Gallup. Usually higher than most and even higher than Fox's numbers.
By the way he's at where he was about a year ago. Nixon numbers.
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh-hstry.htm
Posted by: Keith Douglas | September 20, 2006 2:36 PM
mijnheer: Hm! Good of CBC Newsworld to show it. Really illustrates how different our media is from the US. Can you imagine CNN showing it?
nat: May I ask which European country this documentary was broadcast in? I'm just curious where they are trying to make inroads.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
September 20, 2006 2:37 PM
Isn't it rather silly to complain to a gang of Bush-hatin' libruls who are definitely well into that 60% who loathe the man about the 40% who don't? I strongly recommend that Vargas visit a den of the Right and make his complaints there.
Posted by: Alexander Vargas | September 20, 2006 2:45 PM
Good grief, PZ. Everyone here can pick on Bush all the time, but me??? why are you angry at me this time???
Maybe because you have a wrong set of priorities. Such as attack religion first, then worry about the sociological "details"
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | September 20, 2006 2:53 PM
"the biologist P. Z. Myers, whose Pharyngula blog can reliably be consulted for trenchant good sense."
Um, "great minds think atheist"? Yes, seems like Dawkins.
Posted by: quork | September 20, 2006 4:06 PM
Andrew Brown says
Posted by: quork | September 20, 2006 4:11 PM
Andrew Brown also says
The same would apply to astrology, homeopathy and many other wacky beliefs.
Posted by: matthew | September 20, 2006 4:13 PM
You should be proud PZ. I can't wait for my copy.
Posted by: GH | September 20, 2006 4:31 PM
'Um, "great minds think atheist"? Yes, seems like Dawkins.'
That is a stupid comment. I mean really, really stupid. PZ does have alot of good sense on this blog. Shame you can't see that and only see something else.
Posted by: Alexander Vargas | September 20, 2006 5:13 PM
Errr...GH, I think you are a bit confused dude. Larsson loves PZ and Dawkins.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 20, 2006 5:15 PM
Here then, is some much-needed historical perspective to put Bush's standing in context:
* According to Gallup, on the eve of President John F. Kennedy's 1963 assassination, he was suffering the worst job-approval ratings of his presidency -- 58 percent.
* In 1968, when the war in Vietnam was claiming hundreds of U.S. casualties each week, President Lyndon Johnson was considered so unpopular that he didn't even run for re-election. Johnson's average Gallup approval rating for that year was 43 percent.
* When Reagan's second term was rocked by the Iran-Contra scandal, his ratings plummeted, all the way down to 43 percent.
* This year, according to the Gallup numbers, Bush has averaged an approval rating of 37 percent.
Just some perspective courtesy of Atrios and Mediamatters
http://atrios.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Emanuel Goldstein | September 20, 2006 5:26 PM
Wht th frg ds Dwkns phlsphcl rmblng hv t d wth SCNC.
ll h s dng s PLGTCS fr thsm.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 20, 2006 5:30 PM
All you do is babble. Atheism has nothing to apologize for.
Posted by: George Cauldron
|
September 20, 2006 5:32 PM
Wht th frg ds Dwkns phlsphcl rmblng hv t d wth SCNC.
ll h s dng s PLGTCS fr thsm.
'Emanuel'! How ABOUT a big hug!
Posted by: GH | September 20, 2006 5:46 PM
Your correct Vargas, I totally misread that comment.
I apologize.
Posted by: Watchman | September 20, 2006 6:57 PM
FWIW: Of course results will vary from poll to poll, and yes Gallup is high, but what about the trend? A simple average of Bush approval numbers from approximately 5/1 through today show the current approval% to be 39.7 - an increase of 5.7 points. (I didn't include polls that offered fewer than three data points over the date range.)
If we toss out the high and low deltas (Gallup: 44% +13; Fox: 40%, +2) we get 39.0 and +5.1. Disapproval numbers have fallen similarly, from around 60% down to the low-mid 50's. So, I don't think Mr. Vargas was too far off the mark there.
Thanks for the perspective, Steve_C. Nixon numbers, yup. I remember the day Nixon resigned. Ah, the good old days, when accountability still existed.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 20, 2006 7:05 PM
But you cannot call Bush a "popular" president. And he's not getting a huge bounce. For whatever reasons his numbers have creeped up to where they were a year ago.
Oh and for a "war time" president, the numbers are atrocious.
Posted by: Watchman | September 20, 2006 7:22 PM
Steve, you'll get no argument from me on any of those points!
Will the numbers continue to creep up? Maybe. Does it matter? I don't know, but there's an important election coming up, so yeah, maybe.
Now, for MY brief moment of fame. Well, y'see it was... Ok, actually, I haven't had one. Dang!
Dawkins or no Dawkins, you've got good thing going here, PZ. Pharyngula, a lamp unto my feet. ;-)
Posted by: lindsey | September 20, 2006 11:53 PM
another *great* site for poll numbers is Pollkatz:
http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/
Go to "Approval", halfway down the left side of the home page to get all the major poll results in one graph. many other intersting tidbits as well...
Posted by: horrobin | September 21, 2006 1:45 AM
Oh yeah? Well, Steven Pinker says:
'At last, Richard Dawkins, one of the best non-fiction writers alive today, has assembled his thoughts on religion into a characteristically elegant book.'
So there. Oh and Brian Eno says:
'I see this as a book for a new millennium, one in which we may be released from lives dominated by the supernatural.'
Brian Eno. Man, I love 'Here Come The Warm Jets'.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | September 21, 2006 8:31 PM
"Larsson loves PZ and Dawkins."
Not quite, you have probably not paid attention. I don't agree with either on all topics. But I like their style, and they both provide me stimuli on intellectual and biological topics.
And GH wasn't confused, my quip could be read both ways. Not enough context, which was my fault.
Posted by: coturnix | October 4, 2006 3:50 PM
PZ, you are also mentioned in the footnote on the page 319.